IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAN OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT …
118
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAN OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT AND MENTAL HARASSMENT AND ITS INFLUENCE ON PUPIL DISCIPLINE IN PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN EMUHAYA SUB-COUNTY, KENYA BY KAGENI LINET A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND FOUNDATIONS MASENO UNIVERSITY © 2021
Transcript of IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAN OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT …
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAN OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT AND
MENTAL HARASSMENT AND ITS INFLUENCE ON PUPIL DISCIPLINE IN
PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN EMUHAYA SUB-COUNTY, KENYA
BY
KAGENI LINET
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION IN
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND FOUNDATIONS
MASENO UNIVERSITY
© 2021
ii
DECLARATION
DECLARATION BY CANDIDATE
This thesis is my original work and has not been submitted for a degree to any other
university.
SIGNATURE: …………………………………… DATE: …………………….
KAGENI LINET
PG/MED/095/2013
DECLARATION BY SUPERVISORS
This thesis has been submitted with our approval as University supervisors.
SIGNATURE: ………………………………… DATE: …………………….
PROF. E.M.W. SIMATWA
Department of Educational Management and Foundations
Maseno University
SIGNATURE: ………………………………… DATE: …………………….
DR. J.O. GOGO
Department of Educational Management and Foundations,
Maseno University.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge all those individuals who co-operated and assisted me during the
study. Without their generous contributions, this study would not have been a success. I
want to thank God Almighty from who by faith I drew trust, strength, hope and
determination to keep going during the study period especially when the road seemed
rough and tough. I wish to thank my supervisors Prof. Enose. M.W. Simatwa and Dr.
Julius O. Gogo, for their continuous support, commitment, sacrifice, guidance, valuable
comments, encouragement and positive criticism in the preparation of this study. I am
grateful to all those head teachers, teachers, pupils and the Sub-County QASO who took
their time to respond thereby providing the data for this study. I say a big thank you to my
husband Enos Miya, my lovely children Kendi, Joy, Jeanne, Favor and my late dear
mother and mentor Bilha who encouraged me to pursue the deeper roots of education and
for enduring hard times when I was too busy with my academic work. You have been
very understanding and supportive. I further wish to thank my former principal, Mrs
Fraciah Ettyang and my immediate Principal, Mr. Julius Nyavuke, who always
encouraged me and gave the much-needed support throughout my study.
iv
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my beloved late mother, my loving husband not forgetting my
wonderful children for their confidence in me that inspired me to undertake this Masters
programme.
v
ABSTRACT
Physical punishment and mental harassment as methods of managing pupil discipline in
primary schools are currently unlawful in line with the Basic Education Act, 2013.
However, despite the ban, by the year 2015, Emuhaya Sub-County had a higher rate of
indiscipline cases where there were 833(53%) cases compared to 644(43%) in Vihiga
Sub-County and 543(37%) in Hamisi Sub county. The purpose of this study was to
establish the implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment and
its influence on pupil discipline in public primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-county. The
objectives of the study were; to determine the extent of implementation of ban of physical
punishment in Emuhaya Sub-county, determine the extent of implementation of ban of
mental harassment in Emuhaya Sub-county, to establish the influence of implementation
of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment on pupil discipline. A conceptual
framework consisting of implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment as the independent variable and pupil discipline as the dependent variable was
used. The study adopted cross-sectional and correlation research designs. The study
population comprised of 501; 100 head teachers, 100 deputy head teachers, 100 class
teachers, 200 pupil leaders and 1 sub county quality assurance officer. Simple random
sampling was used to select 71 head teachers, 71 deputy head teachers, 71 class teachers
and 142 pupil leaders. Data was collected using questionnaires and interview schedules.
The validity of the research instruments were ascertained by experts in education
administration whose input was incorporated in the final draft. Test-retest was conducted
to determine reliability of the questionnaires that had a co-efficient of 0.78 for Pupil
Leaders‟ Questionnaire (PLQ), 0.82 for Class Teachers‟ Questionnaire (CTQ) and 0.81
for Deputy Head Teachers‟ Questionnaire (DHTQ) at p-value of 0.05. Quantitative data
was analyzed using percentages, means and regression analysis. Qualitative data was
transcribed and analyzed into emergent themes and sub-themes to establish the influence
of implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment on pupils‟
discipline. The results showed that the overall mean rating on extent of implementation of
ban of physical punishment was 2.89, which translated to moderate ban, mental
harassment was rated at 3.87, which translated to low implementation of ban according to
the rating scale. A significant strong positive relationship between physical punishment
and level of discipline of pupils where ban of physical punishment accounted for 35.9%
of the variation in level of pupil discipline and a weak negative relationship between
mental harassment and level of discipline of pupils: where r = 0.607, N=71 and P < 0.05.
This meant that ban of mental harassment did not significantly influence discipline. When
ban of physical punishment and mental harassment is enforced together, it accounted for
45.2% variation in pupil discipline. The study concluded that there is a strong positive
relationship between the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment and the level
of ban of pupil discipline. The study recommends that ban of physical punishment and
mental harassment be fully implemented in primary schools. The study may be significant
in informing the stakeholders in education for example learners, teachers, policy makers
and members of school management boards that the ban on physical punishment and
mental harassment is indeed improving pupil discipline in public primary schools, and
should be implemented.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
Title ……..……………………...………………………………………………...………..i
Declaration...........................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements ……………………………...……………………………….………iii
Dedication …………………………………………………………………………...…...iv
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………....v
Table of Content…………………………………...…………………………………..….vi
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ……………………………...………………….….ix
List of Tables ……………….…………………………………...………………………...x
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………xi
List of Appendices …………………………………………………….………………...xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION……………………………….………………….1
1.1 Background to the Study ………………………………………………………...…....1
1.2 Statement of the Problem………………………………………….………………....10
1.3 Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………….…………....11
1.4 Objectives of the Study………………………………………………………............11
1.5 Research Questions ………………………………………………………………….12
1.6 Assumptions of the Study …………………………………………………….. …….13
1.7 Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………...13
1.8 Scope of the Study……………………………………………………………………13
1.9 Significance of the Study…………………………………………….……………....14
1.10 Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………………..…...14
1.10 Operational Definition of Terms ………………………………………….……......18
vii
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………..….19
2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………….……………………19
2.2 Concept of Pupil Discipline in Schools……………………………….……..………19
2.3 Ban of Physical Punishment in Schools …………………………………….….……22
2.4 Ban of Mental Harassment in Schools.........................................................................25
2.5 Influence of Ban of Physical Punishment on Discipline ………………………….…29
2.6 Influence of Ban of Mental Harassment on Discipline ……………………….……..31
CHAPTER THREE: REASEARCH METHODOLOGY …….………….………….36
3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………...………….…….36
3.2 Research Design ……………………………………………………………………..36
3.3 Area of Study ………………………………………………………….…….……….37
3.4 Study Population ……………………………………………………………….........37
3.5 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques ……………………………………………...38
3.6 Instruments of Data Collection……………………………………………………….40
3.6.1 Questionnaires for Pupil Leaders (PLQ) ………………………………...……….40
3.6.2 Questionnaires for Class Teachers (CTQ)………………………………..………...41
3.6.3 Questionnaires for Deputy Head Teachers (DHTQ)……………………….............41
3.6.4 Head Teachers Interview Guide……………..……………………………..............41
3.6.5 Sub- County Quality Assurance Officer in-Depth Interview Guide …………..…..41
3.7 Reliability of Instruments ………………………………………….………………...42
3.8 Validity of Instruments……………………………………….………………………42
3.9 Data Collection Procedures ………………………………………………………….43
3.10 Data Analysis ………………………………………...……………………………43
3.11 Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………………………...44
viii
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.…………………..…………….45
4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………….……………45
4.2 Return rate of Questionnaire ……………………………………………….……..…45
4.3 Demographic data …………………….....………………………….………………..46
4.4 Extent of implementation of ban of physical punishment ……………….…………..50
4.5 Extent of implementation of ban of mental harassment …………………….……….57
4.6 Influence of ban of physical punishment on pupils‟ discipline ……………………...61
4.7 Influence of ban of mental harassment on pupils‟ discipline …………………….….67
4.8 Influence of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment on pupils‟
discipline.....................................................................................................................70
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction..………………………………………….…………………...................75
5.2 Summary of Findings ….…………………………………………………………….75
5.3 Conclusions ………….......………………………………………………….……….76
5.4 Recommendations ……………….……………………………………….………….77
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research ………………………………………...……….....78
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………...……..79
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..……88
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CTQ Class Teachers Questionnaires
DHTQ Deputy Head Teachers Questionnaires
DSD Department of Social Development
EFA Education For All
ILO
HTIS
International Labour Organization
Head Teachers Interview Schedule
KHRC Kenya Human Rights Commission
KIE Kenya Institute of Education
MOEST Ministry of Education Science and Technology
NCOP National Council of Provinces
PA
PLQ
Parents Association
Pupil Leaders Questionnaires
SCQASO Sub-county Quality Assurance and Standards Officer
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.0: Cases of indiscipline in Emuhaya, Vihiga and Hamisi sub-counties ……………….10
3.1: Sample Frame …………………………………………………...…………….…….39
4.1: Questionnaire Return Rate ……………………………………………….…………45
4.2: Demographic Information of the Deputy Head Teachers ……………….………….46
4.3: Demographic Information of the Class Teachers ……………………..…………….48
4.4: Demographic Information of the Pupil Leaders ……………………….………….. 49
4.5: Rating of extent of implementation of ban of physical punishment ……….……….50
4.6: Rating of extent of implementation of ban of mental harassment ………….………58
4.7: Mean rating level of pupils discipline …………………………………….……….. 62
4.8: Correlation of Level of Implementation and level of Pupils‟ Discipline ……….…..63
4.9: Regression Analysis of influence of ban of physical punishment on level of pupil
discipline………………………………………………………….…………….… 63
4.10: ANOVA of physical punishment and pupil discipline …………………….………64
4.11: Simple regression of implementation and level of pupil discipline …………….…65
4.12: The rating of level of pupil discipline. …………………………………………….67
4.13: Correlation of mental harassment and level of pupil discipline …………......…….68
4.14: Model summary of physical punishment and mental harassment.............................70
4.15: ANOVA of physical punishment, mental harassment and pupil discipline..............71
4.16: Simple regression analysis of implementation of physical punishment and
mental harassment ban and the level of pupil discipline.........................................72
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.0: Conceptual Framework ……………………………...…………………………….17
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
I: Deputy Head Teachers Questionnaires……………………………………...…...88
II: Class Teachers Questionnaires ……………………………………………....…..92
III: Pupil Leaders Questionnaires………………… …………………………………96
IV: Head Teachers Interview Schedule ………………… …………………………..99
V: Sub County Quality Assurance Officer Interview Schedule ………………...…100
VI: Rating of the Level of pupil disciple and implementation of ban of
physical punishment and mental harassment…………………………….……..101
VII: Research Authorization Letter and Research Permit ………………………..…104
VIII: Map of Location of Emuhaya Sub County………………………….………… 106
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Physical punishment and mental harassment are unlawful in schools under the Kenyan
Constitution (2010). Article 29 of the constitution states that every person has the right to
freedom and security of the person, which includes the right not to be subjected to any
form of violence from either public or private sources; subjected to torture in any manner,
whether physical or psychological subjected to physical punishment or if treated or
punished in a cruel, inhumane or degrading manner. The Basic Education Act 2013 states
expressly in section 36 (1) that no pupil shall be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, in any manner, whether physical or psychological
and section 36 (2) a person who contravenes the provisions of section 36(1) commits an
offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand
shillings or to imprisonment not exceeding six months or both.
Physical punishment is the use of physical force intended to cause pain, but not injury, for
the purpose of correcting or controlling a child‟s behavior (Straus & Donnelly, 2005).
The concept is further elaborated by Gershoff (2002) that physical punishment are;
behaviors, which do not result in significant physical injury (such as; spanking, slapping)
are considered physical punishment, whereas behaviors that risk injury (such as;
punching, kicking, burning) are considered physical abuse (Gershoff, 2002). Mental
harassment on the other hand may take the form of threats, neglect, verbal abuse or denial
of necessities. These forms of punishment cause some degree of pain and discomfort with
the aim of correcting, controlling or changing behavior or educating or bringing the child
up (Save the Children, 2003).
2
Discipline and organization among students in schools is vital in creating a conducive
environment for learning. Discipline is a big concern for the teacher because the success
or failure of a teacher or a principal of a school depends on it. Therefore, students
discipline is a critical factor in judging the performance of a teacher (Onyango, Simatwa
& Gogo, 2016). Sound discipline is an essential ingredient in the creation of a happy and
industrious school community properly performing its function of training the young
citizens. For the school to realize the stated objectives of education, discipline has to be
inculcated in each student. Discipline ensures order and forestalls chaos in a school
environment (Griffin, 1994). The chain of command in schools as far as discipline is
concerned begins with class leaders, who report to class teachers, who ensures the same
information reaches the deputy headteacher who is answerable to the head teacher. The
head teacher bears the ultimate responsibility for overall school discipline (Mulford,
2003). Thus, the head teacher and the school in general have the duty of enhancing
discipline among students. Indeed, the head teacher‟s public and professional reputation
depends more on the level of discipline in his or her school than on any other factor
(Griffin, 1994). This is because good discipline produces good results in every front of
school endeavors.
The issue of indiscipline has plagued the school system in Kenya for many years.
Numerous researches have described and defined the phenomena of indiscipline in
various ways as they have studied the causes and suggested possible panacea to reduce
indiscipline in schools. Indeed, a wide range of articles on the factors which contribute to
indiscipline and strategies which have attained certain degree of success in tackling
indiscipline are readily available. Many of these ideas give into details as to how the
measures to tackle indiscipline are to be implemented (Lochan, 2010)
3
Majority of children have experienced physical punishment by the time they reach
adolescence (Ritchie, 1981). Physical punishment has for long been considered a
necessary means of socializing children, (Smith, Gallop, Taylor & Marshall, 2005) and
has been widely used in schools as a method of managing discipline. However, it has
been revealed that physical punishment has a prediction of a wide range of negative
developmental outcomes on children. Physical punishment and mental harassment is
associated with increased child aggression, anti-social behavior, lower intellectual
achievement, poorer quality of parent-child relationships, mental health problems such as
depression and diminished moral internalization (Human Rights Watch, Spare the Child
Corporal Punishment in Kenya, 2004).
In 1979, Sweden became the first country to prohibit all physical punishment and cruel
treatment of children. Only six countries had prohibited physical punishment for children
by 1996 but by 2006, this number had risen to 26 countries. Other countries have
legislation in progress while others put up restrictions for physical punishment that fall
short of a total ban. As of August 2010, at least 31 countries had explicitly forbidden the
use of physical punishment both at home and in schools (Save the Children, Sweden,
2010).
According to Onyango, Simatwa and Gogo (2016), carried out a study on the Influence of
the Ban of Physical Punishment on Students Discipline in Siaya, Gem and Ugenya Sub
counties found that the condition of students‟ discipline in Kenya‟s secondary schools has
been disheartening. Ogetange (2012), in his study on Teachers and Pupils Views on
Persistent use of Corporal Punishment in Managing Discipline in Primary Schools in
Starehe Division, also noted that no school term went without incidence of violent
behavior in schools being reported in the mass media. Onyango et al (2016) and Ogetange
4
(2012) did not show how the implementation of the ban influenced the discipline of
children in primary schools. This study made an attempt to fill this gap.
In Goa, physical punishment is prohibited in schools in the Right to Free and Compulsory
Education Act (2009). Article 17 states: (1) No child shall be subjected to physical
punishment or mental harassment. (2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section
(1) shall be liable to disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to such person.
(Goa Children‟s Act 2003, article 41), The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules 2010 provide for implementation of the Act, including raising awareness
about the rights in the Act, procedures for monitoring implementation and complaints
mechanisms when the rights are violated. However, after the ban, most schools in Goa
experienced an upsurge of indiscipline cases. In some states, children in secondary
schools went on rampage destroying school and public property (Nadu, 2003). Onyango
(2016) noted that deputy principals, guidance and counseling teachers and class
representatives rated the extent of mental harassment ban implementation to be low, with
respect to disobedience. This indicates that mental harassment is highly used to control
disobedience in secondary schools. The above studies dwelt on the ban of physical
punishment but did not establish if the ban was implemented in primary schools. This
study therefore attempted to fill this gap.
In India, the Delhi High Court struck down provisions for physical punishment in the
Delhi School Education Act (1973) in 2000, and 2004, the Calcutta High Court ruled that
caning in state schools in West Bengal was unlawful. A study carried out by Child Line
India Foundation between 2009 and 2011 found that students experienced physical
punishment in almost 95% of the 198 schools in 11 states studied, despite it being
prohibited. Only 6% of government schools studied and 4% of private schools studied
5
were free of physical punishment (Child Line India, January, 2012). The above study
showed that the ban of physical punishment was not implemented in majority of the
schools. The study however did not take into consideration the aspect of the ban of mental
harassment. There was a gap on implementation of ban of physical punishment and this
study made an attempted to fill it.
In South Africa, physical punishment and mental harassment was outlawed by Section 10
of the Schools Act of 1996, which made the administration of corporal punishment a
criminal offence in South African schools. Physical punishment and mental harassment
had been used as a quick-fix solution, which raised fear and pain and would therefore be
replaced by instilling self-discipline (Human Rights Watch Namibia, 2007). Many South
African educators had difficulty finding an alternative to this traditional method of
punishment and it was argued that physical punishment and mental harassment persisted
because parents use it at home and support its use at school (Msomi, 2004). Morrel
(2003) also states that physical punishment belongs to the traditional school room where
it was the only form of punishment. It was also passed down the ages in the history of
schooling until it was challenged by educational theorists of the progressive era
(Maphumulo & Vakalisa, 2008).
According to the new South African Schools Act (RSA, 1996), an environment conducive
to a healthy study atmosphere may be administered while expulsion and suspension
should be exercised with great caution. Learners may be expelled only if they are guilty
of serious misconduct after a fair hearing, and suspension should only be seen as a
correctional measure not lasting more than five days. Those who advocate physical
punishment argue that the ever-growing disregard for authority among the youth stems
from the abolition of physical punishment both at home and at school. This is tantamount
6
to the teacher losing a grip on the learner. Hence the inference, that if used properly,
physical punishment can be an appropriate measure of discipline for serious offences.
However, this measure needs to be monitored consistently to ensure its correct usage
(Masitsa, 2008). Moreover, such punishment often leads to short-term compliance and
therefore appears to be effective, but actually has negative short-term and long-term
effects (Ancer, 2011). Studies have established a strong relationship between physical
punishment and the development of aggressive behavior by learners. Physical punishment
and mental harassment have a tendency to develop aggressive hostility instead of self-
discipline. For many learners, especially boys, it leads to feelings of revenge, anti-social
aggressiveness and a high rate of vandalism (Kaylor, 2006). The current study attempted
to investigate if the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment had an influence
of pupil discipline.
.
In Kenya the government emphasized on guidance and counseling as an alternative to
physical punishment and mental harassment. Although the government has done a lot in
order to curb violence and indiscipline in schools, there are still some cases of
violence/strikes in schools and many cases of other forms of indiscipline have been
reported in the mass media Murithi (2010) and Onyango (2016), also established that
there was a strong positive relationship between physical punishment and mental
harassment ban and the level of student discipline in secondary schools. Thus, the higher
the extent of physical punishment and mental harassment ban, the higher the level of
discipline. It was important to find out how ban of physical punishment and mental had
influenced the discipline of learners in primary schools in Kenya in general and in
Emuhaya Sub-county in particular. This is the gap that this study attempted to fill.
7
Mugambi (2013) study on an Assessment of the Extent of use of Corporal Punishment in
Secondary Schools in Muthambi Division in Maara District found out that methods that
had been prohibited by the constitution were being used to maintain discipline in
Muthambi Division, in Tharaka-Nithi, Kenya. There was therefore need to find out if the
ban of physical punishment and mental harassment had been implemented in Emuhaya
sub-county and its influence on pupil discipline.
Shisanya (2010) argues that belief in the value of beatings and other forms of
punishments in the upbringing of children is deeply embedded in Kenyan societies and
teachers are often pressured by parents to ensure that they inflict physical punishment and
failure to do so is often interpreted as demonstrating a lack of concern for the child. For
these reasons, the elimination of physical punishment from schools is a difficult task.
According to the study, in an effort to address this problem, there was need to find ways
to engage teachers and students in exploring alternative approaches to discipline children
in schools. Classroom teachers indicated that they had one option to use as far as
controlling pupils was concerned and that was the use of guidance and counseling. They
however asserted that there was a problem of balancing the roles of guidance and
counseling and punishment in the classroom situation. The fact that teachers hardly go for
in-service training in guidance and counseling may mean that their pre-service training is
deemed adequate to make them competent teachers (Ajowi et al, 2013). The above study
found out that the alternatives that were to be used in the place of physical punishment
had weaknesses where many teachers lacked training in alternatives to use of physical
punishment and mental harassment. The absence of proper alternatives to be used in place
of physical punishment and teachers lack of awareness and preparedness, there was need
therefore to find out if ban of physical punishment and mental harassment had been
implemented.
8
Wachira (2004) argues that the ban of corporal punishment in Kenya in the year 2001 has
been blamed for the increase in indiscipline, and naturally, there have been calls to
rethink the decision. However, these views are not in agreement with organizations such
as the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC). Subsequently, the reintroduction of
caning was ruled out in Kenya in the year 2001. Kanja (2008) states that, teachers have
taken a back seat in discipline as there have been cases of teachers being dragged to court
for punishing students which have prompted many to take a back seat over students
behavior. He continues to argue that when teachers, prefects and peer mentors lack the
backing of the school administration, they cannot succeed in enhancing discipline and
decent behavior effectively. Further, it raises the issues about the challenges facing head
teachers and their deputies in dealing with discipline. It is clear that the banning of
corporal punishment in Kenya was not a success as revealed by the above studies. With
the recent ban of physical punishment and mental harassment in place, there was need to
determine if the implementation had taken place and its influence on the discipline of
learners.
In a study conducted in Kisumu Municipality by Ouma (2013) it was noted that although
the legislations and courts are created to protect both the school administrators, teachers
and students, very little was achieved under strict observance of these regulations and
court decisions. It was for this reason that illegal practices in management of pupil
discipline thrived. The study continues to assert that what these legislations have done is
to take away tools that head teachers and principals used to instill discipline into students.
For instance principals and head teachers could facilitate expulsion of unruliest students
or send them to rehabilitation schools for the hard-to-discipline, but education legislations
now do not allow expulsion.
9
Even with the ban of physical punishment, the practice has however persisted in many
schools as revealed by the high prevalence levels of the use of physical punishment in
many studies conducted in various parts of the country such as a study by Kimani, Kara,
and Teresa (2012). Their study in Starehe Sub-county revealed that prevalence levels of
physical punishment were as high as ninety one percent as per the students and fifty
percent as per head teachers however in Emuhaya Sub-county, the information was
lacking. Guidance and counseling services which were expected to replace physical
punishment had their own shortcomings. Chepkirui (2011) notes that 62% of the guidance
and counseling teachers in Bureti District reported that they were just appointed to head
the guidance and counseling and were not trained on their new roles. Even in cases where
there were guidance and counseling teachers, they were not able to address most of the
students‟ problems owing to big weekly workloads occasioned by teacher shortages in
many schools where the national teacher shortage is estimated at eighty thousand. The
above studies concurred that though the use of physical punishment had been prohibited it
was still rampant in Kenyan schools. There is also no clear policy on what amounts to
physical punishment and mental harassment and this has left teachers in a state of
confusion.
The Wangai report of the Task Force on Student Discipline and Unrest in Secondary
Schools of (2001) identified use of physical punishment and mental harassment as a cause
of students‟ unrest. This finding concurs with that of Koech commission (2008) which
found out that excessive use of physical punishment and mental harassment had a bearing
on the schools unrest and violence. These reports made a background for the banning of
physical punishment and mental harassment in Kenyan schools by the Basic Educational
ACT (2013). The government of Kenya expected that after the ban cases of indiscipline
10
in schools would be done away with. This however as not been the case. Emuhaya Sub
– county was chosen as the site for the study because it was found to be having higher
cases of indiscipline than the neighboring sub – counties of Vihiga and Hamisi. This is
summarized in Table1, which indicates the total number of cases reported to the deputy
headteachers offices in Vihiga County in first term of the year 2014.
Table 1: Cases of Indiscipline in Emuhaya, Vihiga, and Hamisi Sub – counties
Sub-County Indiscipline Cases
Theft Fighting Drug abuse Truancy Absenteeism Noisemaking
Emuhaya 612 (38%) 713 (35%) 329 (42%) 698 (36%) 1417 (41%) 1800 (39%)
Vihiga 506 (31%) 670 (33%) 247 (31%) 659 (34%) 1124 (32%) 1500 (32%)
Hamisi
Totals
496
1617
(31%)
100%
655
2038
(32%
100%
212
788
(27%
100%
583
1940
(30%)
100%
920
3461
(27%)
100%
1350
4650
(29%
100%
Source: Vihiga County Quality and Standards Assessment Report 2015
Table 1 shows Emuhaya Sub-county led in percentage of all the indicators of indiscipline
in relation to Vihiga and Hamisi Sub-counties as per the cases reported in first term, 2014
in Vihiga County. From the studies reviewed, the aspect of ban of physical punishment
and mental harassment had not been under researched. This study investigated the ban of
physical punishment, mental harassment ban, and its influence on pupil discipline.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment and its influence
on pupil discipline in public primary schools is an issue of concern in schools in Kenya.
Despite the ban, there have been reported cases of its use in educational institutions.
Studies carried out in Sweden, India and South Africa have revealed that the ban of
physical punishment and mental harassment increased indiscipline of learners by up to
11
20%. After the ban in Kenya in 2013, reported cases of pupil indiscipline were on the
increase in Emuhaya Sub-county; that is in 2013 theft cases were 500, fighting 600, drug
abuse 100, truancy 450, absenteeism 700 and noisemaking 1350. In 2015, the cases were
612, 713, 329, 698, 1417 and 1800 respectively (Vihiga County Quality and Standards
Assessment Report, 2015). Emuhaya Sub - county was chosen as the site for the study
because it was found to be having higher cases of indiscipline than the neighboring sub –
counties of Vihiga and Hamisi in the larger Vihiga county. From the reviewed literature,
physical punishment and mental harassment was being used even after the ban. Where the
ban was successful, the level of learner discipline was on a downward trend. This created
a good ground for the researcher to investigate and come up with findings with reference
to school pupils and how they behave after the ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment. The debates on the effects of physical punishment on learner discipline in
Kenya and abroad had been extensively researched on but the influence of the ban of
physical punishment and mental harassment on learners‟ discipline was still under
researched.
The ban in Kenya was intended to improve pupil discipline. It was not clear the extent to
which the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment had influenced pupil
discipline. The purpose of this study was therefore to find out the extent of
implementation of the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment and its
influence on pupil discipline in primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-county.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the implementation of ban of physical
punishment and mental harassment and its influence on pupil discipline in public primary
schools in Emuhaya Sub-county.
12
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study were to;
i. Determine the extent of implementation of the ban of physical punishment in
public primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-county.
ii. Determine the extent of implementation of the ban of mental harassment in public
primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-county.
iii. Establish the influence of the ban of physical punishment on pupils‟ discipline in
public primary schools in Emuhaya Sub County.
iv. Establish the influence of the ban of mental harassment on pupils‟ discipline in
public primary schools in Emuhaya Sub County.
1.5 Research Questions
The study was guided by the following research questions:
i. To what extent was the ban of physical punishment implemented in public
primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-county?
ii. To what extent was the ban of mental harassment implemented in public primary
schools in Emuhaya Sub-county?
iii. What was the influence of the ban of physical punishment on pupils‟ discipline in
public primary schools in Emuhaya Sub County?
iv. What was the influence of the ban of mental harassment on pupils‟ discipline in
public primary schools in Emuhaya Sub County?
13
1.6 Assumptions of the Study
The study was carried out based on the following assumptions:
i. School managers were aware of the ban of use of physical punishment and mental
harassment in managing pupil discipline
ii. Pupils were aware of the importance of discipline in primary school education.
iii. That school managers and pupils were aware and conversant with the education
policy on discipline.
1.7 Limitations of the Study
Two head teachers were transferred during the course of the study before being
interviewed. This did not however influence the outcome of the study much since the
incoming headteachers were interviewed. The data collected on indiscipline largely
consisted of the opinions of the respondents and this could not be relied on. Also the fear
of consequences of use of physical punishment and mental harassment may have led to
biased responses from the teachers.
1.8 Scope of the Study
The study was confined to Emuhaya Sub-county. The focus of the study was to determine
the extent to which ban of physical punishment and mental harassment had been
implemented. The study was also to establish the influence of the ban of physical
punishment and mental harassment on pupils‟ discipline for the years 2016- 2018. The
respondents of the study included the CQASO, Headteachers, Deputy Headteachers,
Class Teachers and Pupil Leaders. The choice of the respondents was informed by the
fact that cases of indiscipline are reported through a chain of command beginning with
the pupil leaders in class, the class teachers, the school deputy headteachers, the
headteachers and finally the sub county quality assurance officer.
14
1.9 Significance of the Study
The findings of this study are significant in informing stakeholders in education who
include pupils, teachers, policy makers and even members of the Board of Management
on the need to fully implement the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment
ban for purposes of improving pupil discipline.
1.10 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework was based on the concept that when physical punishment and
mental harassment are withdrawn, a conducive environment is attained and pupils are
disciplined. Punishment is not needed for pupils to operate orderly and productively. It
was informed by the Grounded Theory that stipulates that; where there is no appropriate
theory, data in literature review can be used to develop the conceptual frame work. From
the reviewed literature, the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment has either
increased or reduced the discipline of pupils. In some literature, the ban saw an increase
in pupil discipline and in others, discipline went down. This is the reason there is use of
the term discipline in the conceptual framework.
The study investigated the implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment and its influence on pupil discipline in public primary schools. The
conceptual framework postulates that physical punishment and mental harassment
(independent variable) affects the level of pupil discipline (dependent variable).
The conceptual framework envisages that the independent variable determines the level
of pupil discipline in schools. From the conceptual framework, prohibiting the use of
physical punishment and mental harassment in schools is supposed to have an influence
on pupil discipline. It will either escalate indiscipline cases since those who feared the use
15
of forms of physical punishment such as caning will start misbehaving. On the other hand
discipline could improve where pupils will behave well since they are not being punished.
From the literature reviewed, physical punishment and mental harassment are more
effective in student discipline management compared to alternative methods like guidance
and counseling. On the other hand, Pupils prefer physical punishment and mental
harassment ban resulting in high level of discipline. This mean The use of alternative
methods of discipline management such as guidance and counseling, withdrawal and
suspension are less effective and more likely, results in high levels of offences such
underage pregnancy, drug abuse, truancy, theft among others (Busienei, 2012). The
government emphasized on guidance and counseling, as an alternative to mental
harassment. According to Kaburu (2006), the use of guidance and counseling to manage
student discipline is not effective because teachers lack guidance and counseling skills.
This method is also time consuming and schools lack resources for effective guidance and
counseling programs. Although, the government has done a lot in order to curb violence
and indiscipline in schools, there are still some cases of violence/strikes in schools.
Furthermore, many cases of other forms of indiscipline have been reported in the mass
media (Murithi, 2010).
The intervening variable moderates the independent variables influence on the dependent
variable (Kenya Institute of Management, 2009). This means the variables increase or
reduce the effect of the ban on pupil discipline. If teachers‟ attitude towards the ban is
negative, they will continue using physical punishment and mental harassment. The
conceptual framework postulates that intervening variables include school rules and
school culture. For teachers to manage discipline using any discipline management
method, there must be school rules in place. The school rules will guide the teachers as
they manage student discipline. School culture determines which discipline management
16
methods are acceptable in a school. Teachers‟ attitudes towards methods of discipline
management determine whether these methods will be effective or not. Teachers are the
implementers of policies at the school level (Ouma et al, 2013).
Discipline management methods can only have an effect on student discipline level only
if they are fully implemented. As a consequent, ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment in schools make the teachers feel that they have been completely stripped off
their powers and have no control over their students and they feel they have been given
no alternatives. As a result, they feel completely helpless (Kopansky, 2002).
Teachers argue that alternative methods of discipline management like guidance and
counseling take a lot of time which should be used for learning activities. They argue that
such methods are only effective in schools where students have self discipline (Samoei,
2012). School culture determines whether physical punishment and mental harassment
can be used effectively to maintain discipline in schools. In some schools, physical
punishment and mental harassment is part of the school culture and students accept it.
Head teacher‟s management style also determines the effective discipline management
method (Kiumi, 2008). Ireri and Muola (2010) found out that the government and school
management do not provide the needed infrastructure and support effective guidance and
counseling to take place in schools.
17
Independent Variables Dependent Variable
Figure 1.0: A Conceptual framework showing the Influence of Ban of Physical
Punishment and Mental Harassment on Pupil Discipline.
Intervening variables
PUPIL DISCIPLINE BAN OF PHYSICAL
PUNISHMENT AND
MENTAL HARASSMENT
- Teachers‟ attitude
- School rules
- School culture
18
1.11 Operational Definition of Terms
Ban: The act of forbidding Physical punishment from being used in management or
outlawing.
Discipline: Refers to self-restraint in dealing with situations in order to maintain law and
order.
Implementation: Make changes that the government has officially decided should
happen.
Indiscipline: Violation of norms in a given society
Influence: Affect the way pupils develop, behave, or think without using direct force or
orders
Mental harassment: Action that is intended to upset, disturb or cause mental anguish the
victim.
Physical punishment: An action intended to cause physical discomfort or pain inflicted
by an object to correct a child‟s behavior, to teach a lesson or to deter the child
from repeating the negative behavior.
Public primary school: An elementary school supported by the government for children
between 5 and 13 years old.
Pupil: Is a person who is enrolled in a primary school
19
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This section presents related literature review to the study. The areas covered include; ban
of physical punishment in schools, ban of mental harassment in schools, influence of ban
of physical punishment on pupil‟s discipline, influence of mental harassment on pupil‟s
discipline and pupil discipline.
2.2 Concept of Pupil Discipline
Discipline is an important component of human behavior. It helps in regulating people‟s
reaction in various situations. Without discipline, an organization cannot function well
towards the achievement of its objectives. According to Okumbe (1999), discipline is in
real terms the epicenter of a success of school. The efficiency and effectiveness of all
organizational activities depend on the organizational degree of discipline. Discipline is
the correction of the wrong doer, (Mbiti, 1974). Discipline is connected with training,
guiding and arranging conditions of learning. Through good morals among the youth, a
good society can be molded.
Ouma, Simatwa and Serem (2013) define discipline as the actions by management to
enforce organizational standards. There are many standards or codes of behavior to which
teachers, students and non-teaching staff must adhere. Discipline helps the students to do
those necessary activities in order to enhance their education while limiting those
behaviors that are self-defeating. Students require discipline for positive development and
for adequate educational progress (Charles, 2002). Barasa (2013) defines indiscipline as
the attitude and unwillingness to make efforts required to achieve the objectives chosen,
20
which make the student a defiant person who chooses to rebel and turn away from the
goal laid down by both parents and teachers.
Throughout the world, cases of pupil indiscipline have increased in intensity and
prevalence. Pupils‟ rebellion against established authority has occurred in every country
with significant increase and intensity (Otieno, 2004). In United Kingdom, more than
2000 primary school pupils were suspended in the year 2009 as principals struggled to
cope with the surge in violent and unruly pupils (Mucmahron, 2009). Opposition leader
Baillieu concurred by pointing out that poor discipline was increasing among children of
all ages and school principals should be given power to search for firearms in the pupils
to tackle the problem. Herald Sun, Magazine published that the number of assaults in and
around schools increased by more than 150 percent between 2000 and 2001. In 2009,
16393 public primary and secondary pupils were suspended, more than 200 were expelled
(Mucmahron, 2009). United States of America has experienced the highest rate of school
crime in the past decade; Canada as well as Britain have experienced increased use of
firearms in public schools. Pupils have turned to violence not only on fellow pupils but
also on teachers (Kriener, 2000). Schools are also confronted with gang recruitment,
rivalry, drug abuse and trafficking, such problems lead to violence in and around the
school.
Jimi (2008) carried a study on the role of educators in the management of school
discipline in the Nkangala Region in South Africa and noted that discipline problems in
primary schools included use of abusive language, lack of concentration, late coming and
threats by pupils. At the onset of 21st Century, Kenya has been beset with serious
indiscipline cases in most educational institutions. Reports on the situation on discipline
in Kenya schools indicate that violence and destructive forms of pupil and student unrest
21
had increased. Between 2013 and 2015, 386 schools reported cases of student and pupil
unrest in Kenya (Republic of Kenya, 2016). Between June to July 2016, over 100
secondary schools went up in flames and school property worth millions of shillings was
destroyed and one student died (The People Newspaper, 2016 August, 21st). Mukundi
(1999) observed that head teachers have more demanding task since they deal with very
young and developing individuals. If proper discipline standards are not inculcated at this
stage, then most secondary schools will experience many indiscipline problems.
According to a survey by the National Agency for Campaign against drug abuse, 28.7%
of primary school children take alcohol (Daily Nation, 2016 October, 27th).
Afullo (2005) noted that indiscipline cases that have become a major concern in schools
include, arson, sexual assault, theft, sneaking out of school, fighting, bullying, drug abuse,
truancy, lateness, obscene language and noise making. Afullo (2005) further reveals that
in Kenya, schoolteachers find it difficult to enforce discipline particularly after the
abolishment of corporal punishment since discipline is often equated with corporal
punishment.
After the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment in Kenya in 2013, cases of
pupil indiscipline were on the increase in Emuhaya Sub-county; that is in 2013 theft cases
were 500, fighting 600, drug abuse 100, truancy 450, absenteeism 700 and noisemaking
1350. In 2015, the cases were 612, 713, 329, 698, 1417 and 1800 respectively. In two
primary schools, it was reported that pupils had gone on rampage protesting the transfers
of head teachers (Vihiga County Quality and Standards Assessment Report, 2015). This
study therefore was carried out to determine whether the increase in cases of indiscipline
in Emuhaya Sub- County had any relationship with the ban.
22
2.3 Ban of Physical Punishment in Schools
According to The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009),
“Corporal” or “physical” punishment is any punishment in which physical force is used
and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Examples of
physical punishment include but are not restricted to the causing of physical harm to
children by hitting, kicking, scratching, pinching, biting, pulling the hair, boxing ears,
smacking, slapping, spanking with or without any implement (cane, stick, shoe, chalk,
dusters, belt, whip, giving electric shock etc). Secondly, there is the making of children
assume an uncomfortable position (standing on bench, standing against the wall in a
chair- like position, standing with schoolbag on head, holding ears through legs, kneeling
etc.). To add on that, there is use of forced ingestion of anything (for example; washing
soap, mud, chalk, hot spices etc.). Another method is detention in the classroom, library,
toilet or any closed space in the school.
Discipline and organization among students in schools is vital in creating a conducive
environment for learning. Discipline is a big concern for the teacher because the success
or failure of a teacher or a principal of a school depends on it. Therefore, students
discipline is a critical factor in judging the performance of teacher (Onyango, 2016).
Many countries such Norway and Denmark have banned use of physical punishment in
schools considering it as a source of violence and general indiscipline among learners
(Larzelere, 1999). Most of the child welfare organizations have policies opposing the use
of physical punishment. Many educationists in developed countries are against physical
punishment because it lowers the dignity of the child (Graziano, 1990).
The South Africa Constitution of 1996 (Republic of South Africa, 1996b) explicitly
enshrines, guarantees and protects human rights in general and children‟s rights in
23
particular. The second chapter of the constitution focuses on the Bill of Rights and states
in unequivocal terms the need to protect such rights. For example, Section 12 (1) of the
constitution which states that: Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the
person, which includes the right not to be tortured in any way; and not to be treated or
punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way (Republic of South Africa, 1996b7). This
section has direct implications to what happens in schools and classrooms. Learner
misbehavior can be gross at times and negatively affect the smooth running of the schools
and the safety of educators and learners.
Morrell (2001), however, states that even after the banning of the use of corporal
punishment in schools, educators still used it as a strategy to discipline learners. Wittingly
or unwittingly, educators may be unaware that they are committing crimes under the
guise of disciplining learners. Mtsweni (2008) observes that after the banning of corporal
punishment in schools, most educators feel incapacitated and helpless in dealing with
learner indiscipline in schools. Learners are believed to have now become ill disciplined
to the extent that they even openly challenge the teacher‟s authority because they know
that nothing would be done to them (Masitsa, 2008). According to Professor Asmal
(2000), the void left by the outlawing of physical punishment can be filled by proactive
and constructive alternatives that ultimately contribute to the growth of well-balanced
children who are able to interact with each other and the world in a respectful, tolerant
and responsible manner. Educators should also uphold the values of justice, equality,
freedom and tolerance.
A counselor at Makerere University Hospital described beating as a primitive way of
communicating to children. He recommended talking and listening as the best way of
guiding them and helping them to learn (Kemigish, 1999). According to him, physical
24
punishment teaches children nothing positive, nothing about the way we as adults want
them to behave, on the contrary, it is a potent lesson in bad behavior. Teachers are in loco
parentis while a child is in school; they serve as surrogate parents. Physical punishment
was banned in Uganda in 1997. Kilubya (2010) in a study on perceptions of primary and
secondary school headteachers towards corporal punishment in Kampala‟ Uganda found
out that even after the ban of corporal punishment, teachers continued using it to instill
discipline on learners. The main reason for using it was that it was quick and produced
the required results.
In Kenyan school was evident in the early 70s. Teachers were faced with a difficult task
of maintaining the discipline of learners. It is on this basis that teachers in Kenya were
legally permitted to use physical punishment in 1972 through Legal Notice No. 40 of
1972. However, in 2001, the same Legal Notice was overturned by Legal Notice No. 56
of 2001, Children Act of 2001, Constitution of Kenya of 2010 and The Basic Education
Act of 2013 and Kenya‟s penal code since the disadvantages of use of physical
punishment outweighed its advantage.
In a recent study carried out in Muthambi division, Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya on the
extent of use of physical punishment, it was clear from the findings that physical
punishment was widespread in schools (Mutuma, 2013). In this study majority of the
deputy principals agreed that physical punishment specifically canning was the most
effective form of punishment. The above study clearly shows that with ban of physical
punishment, there were no clear alternatives that seemed to work and therefore teachers
went back to using physical punishment. The findings concurred with those of Ouma
(2013) in a study carried out in Kisumu Municipality, Kenya on management of pupil
25
discipline. In this study, it was found out that most head teachers went against the law by
meting physical forms of punishment on pupils in spite of the ban.
Morrel (2001), Mutuma (2013), Masitsa (2008) and Ouma, et al (2013) revealed that the
ban of physical punishment in schools, had not been fully implemented. There was
therefore need to carry out a study that investigated this the scenario in Emuhaya Sub-
county as far as the implementation of ban of physical punishment was concerned. This
was the knowledge gap that this study attempted to fill.
2.4 Ban of Mental Harassment in Schools
Mental harassment is understood as any non-physical treatment that is detrimental to the
academic and psychological well-being of a child up (Save the Children, 2003). It
includes but is not restricted to use sarcasm that hurts or lowers the child‟s dignity for
example calling names and scolding using humiliating adjectives. Intimidation remarks
using derogatory terms for the child and pinning of slogans. Ridiculing the child with
regard to their background, status, parental occupation, caste or with regard to their health
status or that of the family is also an aspect of mental harassment. This form of
punishment causes some degree of pain and discomfort with the aim of correcting,
controlling or changing behavior or educating or bringing the child up (Save the Children,
2003).
Another aspect is the belittling of a child in the classroom due to his/her inability to meet
the teacher‟s expectations of academic achievement. The use of punitive measures to
correct a child such as labeling him/her as difficult when the child has attention deficit or
disorder is mental harassment. Finally, the shaming of a child to motivate him/her to
improve his/her performance, ridiculing a child with developmental problems such as
26
learning difficulty or a speech disorder, such as, stammering or speech articulation
disorder is also an aspect of mental harassment (The United Nations Committee on the
Rights of the Child, 2009). Mental harassment is associated with increased child
aggression, anti-social behavior, lower intellectual achievement, poorer quality of parent-
child relationships, mental health problems such as depression and diminished moral
internalization (Human Rights Watch, 2004, Spare the Child Corporal Punishment in
Kenya).
In 1979, Sweden became the first country to prohibit mental and cruel treatment of
children. Only six countries had prohibited mental harassment for children by 1996 but by
2006, this number had risen to 26 countries. Other countries have legislation in progress
while others put up restrictions for punishment that fall short of a total ban. As of August
2010, at least 31 countries had explicitly forbidden the use of mental harassment both at
home and in schools (Save the Children, Sweden, 2010).
Since the passage of legislations banning physical mental harassment in South African
schools, disruptive behavior in school had become an issue of national concern (Marais,
2010). In the study, it was noted that teachers in South Africa were increasingly becoming
distressed about disciplinary problems in school as mental harassment had been outlawed
by legislations. Some sectors of the society in South Africa reacted positively to the
legislation claiming that it affirms human dignity, but others expressed concern,
contending that there were no viable alternatives to physical punishment and mental
harassment.
Teachers, parents and other careers need to be trained to enable them apply effectively the
alternative discipline methods. According to Human Rights Watch (1999) praising the
child‟s good behavior, being compassionate and showing respect significantly reduces
27
disciplinary problems. Alternative methods of discipline are more beneficial and less
detrimental to a child‟s development than mental harassment. It is also a fact that
alternative discipline does not necessarily require the investment of significant amount of
additional funds (Save the Children Sweden, 2003).
Naong (2007) in a report in a South African Educational journal dealing with use of
mental harassment asserted that, even with the use of alternatives to maintaining
discipline there are many challenges facing schools as far as the thorny issue of discipline
is concerned. Such challenges include, lack of teachers preparedness in handling
discipline in the absence of physical mental harassment. According to him, this abolition
of had left a gap that could not be filled and this had led to all kinds of disciplinary
problems in schools. The above study showed that the ban of mental harassment had led
to a rise in learner indiscipline. Shisanya, (2010) argues that belief in the value of
beatings and other forms of punishments in the upbringing of children is deeply
embedded in Kenyan societies and teachers are often pressured by parents to ensure that
they inflict physical punishment or mental harassment and failure to do so is often
interpreted as demonstrating a lack of concern for the child. For these reasons, the
elimination of physical punishment and mental harassment from schools is a difficult
task. According to the study, in an effort to address this problem, there was need to find
ways to engage teachers and students in exploring alternative approaches to discipline
children in schools. Classroom teachers indicated that they had one option to use as far as
controlling pupils was concerned and that was the use of guidance and counseling. They
however asserted that there was a problem of balancing the roles of guidance and
counseling and punishment in the classroom situation. The fact that teachers hardly go for
in-service training in guidance and counseling may mean that their pre-service training is
deemed adequate to make them competent teachers (Ajowi, 2013).
28
Cotton (2005) investigated the methods used by teachers to manage student discipline in
primary schools. He found out that standing in class, name calling, students being send
out of class and insulting the wrong doer were common. This shows that mental
harassment is common in primary schools. Kirui (2012) concurs by pointing out that
teachers often use verbal reprimand, insults and threats to manage student discipline in
schools. Gikonyo (2002), Simatwa (2007) and Ajowi (2012), Mutuma (2015) found the
following as some of the methods used by teachers to manage discipline in schools:
exclusion, standing in class, name calling, verbal warning, negative comments, and
reprimand among others. Although the Children Act outlaws the use of mental
harassment in schools, it does not specify what methods of discipline management qualify
as mental harassment. It leaves it to the teacher to interpret and decides which methods
will be regarded as mental harassment. The teachers are the implementers of policies at
the school level and they can only implement the policies that they are able to interpret
correctly.
Kindiki (2009) Nduku, (2004) and Ouma, Simatwa and Serem (2013) investigated
alternative methods teachers used in the absence of mental harassment. They concluded
that teachers used various methods including mental harassment. These studies are in line
with a study carried out by Simatwa (2007) who concluded that teachers use mental
harassment to control minor offences. In a related study, Omboto (2012) found that
teachers used methods that were punitive and illegal to manage student discipline. The
methods used included mental harassment. Studies by Simatwa (2007) and Omboto
(2012) investigated methods used by teachers to manage student discipline in schools.
Studies by Nduku (2004) and Ouma, Simatwa and Serem (2013) investigated alternative
methods to corporal punishment used by teachers to manage student discipline in schools.
Onyango, Simatwa and Gogo (2016) established that mental harassment was being used
29
in schools to maintain leaner discipline despite the ban. There was need to investigate if
the ban of mental harassment had been implemented in Emuhaya Sub county.
2.5 Influence of Ban of Physical Punishment on Discipline
The problem of indiscipline in schools is not unique to Kenya. It is a global issue of great
concern, spanning political, economic, geographical, racial and even gender boundaries
Muchemi (2001). Sweden was one of the first countries in United Kingdom to ban the use
of physical punishment. Larzelere, (1999) according to him; those in favor of a ban on
smacking often quote Sweden as a role model. Sweden banned smacking in 1979. A
primary aim of the ban was to decrease rates of child abuse and to promote supportive
approaches for parents rather than coercive state intervention. Evidence suggests the ban
has totally failed to achieve these aims. Larzelere (1999) argues that far from any
decrease in violence, there has been a sharp increase in child abuse and child-on-child
violence. In addition, supportive approaches for parents‟ has, in reality, meant the
removal of children from the home in 46% of new cases receiving “support and care
measures.” Cases of indiscipline were also noted in England after the outlawing of
physical punishment. The government then planned a crackdown on school indiscipline
by giving schools powers to search pupils for weapons under new plans. According to the
then Education Secretary, Hon. Charles Clarke, schools were encouraged to arrange for
surprise police searches of the premises to reduce the problem of indiscipline (BBC,
2004).
There is a growing concern regarding indiscipline in schools within the United Arab
Emirates (Khaleej Times, 2006), where banning of physical punishment was blamed for
the children‟s indiscipline. The parents were getting anxious and frustrated as they
complained of the rising incidents of indiscipline and violence in schools. The concern
30
was not only on the risk of destruction of property and injury to persons, but also on the
poor academic performance associated with the growing trend of indiscipline. The
standards of discipline were also reported to be deteriorating in India (India Parenting
PVT, 2007). According to this report, there was a need to find a lasting solution to the
problem of indiscipline. It was concluded that a solution to the issue of indiscipline would
make students‟ education and schooling more productive.
The schools in Botswana had their image marred by acts of student indiscipline, Marais
(2010). According to the study, some students died and others became blind after they
broke into the school science laboratory and consumed toxic amounts of methanol and
ethanol. This was after the ban on physical punishment in South African schools. The
study continues to state that a survey on a number of previous provincial schools also
revealed that indiscipline had caused deterioration in academic performance in response
to a public outcry; the South African government launched a national project on
discipline in South African schools in the year 2000. Many of the recommendation
emanating from the project were published in a booklet entitled „Alternatives to Physical
Punishment; the Learning Experience‟ which was distributed to all schools in South
Africa in 2001 by the National Department of Education. The booklet containing
guidelines on alternatives to physical punishment was disseminated in an effort to combat
escalating disciplinary problems in schools. In spite of this support from the National
Department of Educators, the following headline appeared in the media „Punishment
guide not helping much with discipline-wonderful theories not always practical.‟
(Rademeyer, 2001). These comments focused renewed attention on the jaundiced view of
discipline (a view that is biased, discriminatory, prejudiced or an attitude formed
beforehand) that became evident after physical punishment was abolished. Teachers who
used to rely on reactive measures to curb indiscipline had now to develop alternative
31
proactive measures to do the same. Naong (2007) maintains that abolition of physical
punishment in schools has left a gap, which cannot be filled, and that it has led to all
kinds of disciplinary problems in schools such as theft, lateness, truancy, arson and
destruction of property.
In his study, Mugambi (2013) found out that after the ban of use of physical punishment,
teachers in Muthambi division Tharaka-Nithi County went back to use of forms of
physical punishment such as canning, kneeling, manual work, punching and kicking
because of the rise in indiscipline and falling academic standards. More than ninety
percent of the methods that were initially used for management of student discipline in
Kenya, like manual labor, corporal punishment, reprimanding, kneeling, detention,
exclusion and suspension are illegal according to the current legislations (Ouma, 2013).
This has left the teachers with few options on what disciplinary measures they should use
to correct students. This may have influenced management of discipline in schools where
teacher left the student to their own devices hence lowering the level of discipline.
Naong (2007) Mugambi (2013) and Onyango, Simatwa and Gogo (2016) found out that
the ban of physical punishment in secondary schools led to an increase in student
indiscipline. These studies indicate that the ban of physical punishment in secondary
schools had led to a decline in levels of discipline. These studies were done in secondary
schools. There was a gap in literature where the influence of the ban of physical
punishment in primary school pupils is not known. This study attempted to fill this gap.
2.6 Influence of Ban of Mental harassment on Pupils’ Discipline
The Kenyan Government, through MOEST suggested that guidance and counseling
services in schools should be strengthened to provide a new way of managing pupil
32
discipline after the banning of mental harassment by the Basic Education Act 2013.
However, the structures for providing guidance and counseling in schools are still so
weak that it is doubtful whether they will adequately fill the gap left because of the ban of
mental harassment. They lack training in basic counseling skills and expertise to use
computers and the internet (KIE, 2003) and therefore cannot be relied on to provide up to
date counseling sessions to learners.
Critical studies done by Bretch (2002) in Harvard University revealed that emotional,
social and behavioral consequences of the use of mental harassment were dealt with and
had far-reaching effects. Mental harassment and its effects are of particular relevance to
children‟s professionals like psychologists, social workers, teachers and doctors. Pupils
on whom mental harassment is administered are often left with emotional evidence of the
abuse.
Onyango (2016) Mugambi (2013) and Larzelere (2002) in their studies show that the use
of mental harassment influences children‟s school attendance due to fear and
consequently the learning environment is not perceived as safe hence school is avoided.
Children who have been subjected to mental harassment in schools are more likely to use
violence in their own families later in life; while learners who are verbally reprimanded
are more likely to bully their peers.
Straus (2004); stated that adolescents who were subjected to mental harassment
displayed an increased risk of developing depressive symptoms as adults. He further
stated that it increases suicidal deflation, which is further, associated with a high
frequency of suicidal thoughts as an adult.
33
More studies in America by Kopansky (2002) explained that students and pupils who are
exposed to mental harassment at an early age might develop into adults who display little
or no empathy and would hurt without conviction in the future. Furthermore, children
learn aggression as an effective means of problem solving. The effect of this kind of
punishment has more future problems. Straus (2004) asserted that American and
European adolescents who experience frequent mental harassment are at a greater risk of
assaulting later in life. Parents who use mental harassment as a form of discipline have a
greater probability of their children developing delinquent tendencies (Kopansky, 2002).
According to Straus (2004) and Boyd (2008) regular, periodic and repeated mental
harassment leads to chemical and structural changes in the brain, which result in
depression of learners. Flynn (2010) was of the opinion that there is no clear evidence
that mental harassment will in the future lead to better control in classroom, enhance
moral character development in children, or increase the pupils‟ respect for teachers or
other authority figures. Mental harassment does not instruct pupils‟ incorrect behavior.
Moreover, the use of mental harassment in schools communicates that reprimanding is
the correct way to solve problems and emotional violence is acceptable in our society.
This sentiment was supported pro- violence attitudes of youth. Concerning pupils‟
behavior, Smith (2008) concluded that mental harassment by Ginnot (2001) mental
harassment does not produce long- lasting changes in behavior, negatively
encourages pupils to be sneaky, truant and to lie about their behavior in order to escape
harm. Furthers more, pupils fear their teachers and also going to school, some run away
from their teachers and from school, feel high levels of anxiety helplessness and
humiliation, being aggressive or destructive at home and school.
In Africa, effects of mental harassment are numerous. Research done by Mabelane (2000)
in South Africa and that of Joubert and Prinsloo (2010) contended sneaking from school
34
was a major discipline problem as most students feared\ the punishment and consequently
this influenced negatively on their academic achievement. Similarly, in Kenya, Simatwa
(2007), found out that some students sneak from school to go and indulge in other
indiscipline cases such as drinking smoking among others. Studies by Mudis and Yambo
(2015) have found out that reprimanded pupils‟ and those who watch the reprimands
become timid, lose self-confidence. O‟Brien and Carl (2013); Ombuya, Yambo and
Omolo (2012) children who experience psychological abuse because of mental
harassment may suffer from sleep disturbances, including the reappearance of bedwetting
nightmares, sleepwalking and fear of falling asleep in a darkened room. There have been
reported cases of children committing suicide because of the humiliation and shame they
feel due to physical and mental punishment (UNICEF, 2011). Furthermore, somatic
symptoms such as stomachache, headaches, and fatigue and bowel disturbances,
accompanied by a refusal to go to school can also occur (Hyman, 1990). Mental
harassment decreases a child‟s motivation and increases his/ her anxiety as a consequence
the ability to concentrate is inhibited and learning is poor (UNICEF, 2011). Simatwa
(2007) and Yambo (2012) posited that unplanned, unreasonable punishment deprives a
learner confidence and exposes child mental health problems particularly internalizing
ones such as depression, drug, and substance and alcohol abuse.
The ban mental harassment also brought diverse in disciplinary cases which included
truancy, bullying, indecency in dressing, lying, theft, sexual harassment, absenteeism,
drugs and substance abuse, sneaking, disobedience, not completing assignment, noise
making in class due to lack of punishment in schools. Pupils resorted to lethal ways of
expressing their grievances such as gang raping teachers, looting, arson, destroying
schools and public properties, drinking, smoking, murdering their teachers and even
35
fellow pupils (UNICEF, 2001). Mugambi 2013), Onyango (2016) and Ombori (2016)
also found out that the ban of mental harassment led to an increase in learner indiscipline.
An analysis of the literature reviewed shows that most researchers have revealed that the
ban of mental harassment lowered the discipline of learners. The scenario in Emuhaya
Sub-county was however not known. This study therefore investigated the
implementation of ban of mental harassment and its influence on pupil discipline in an
attempt to fill this gap.
36
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The study determined the implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment and its influence on pupils‟ discipline in public primary schools in Emuhaya
Sub-county. This section focused on the research design, description of the location of
study, population, sampling procedure, instruments for data collection, validity and
reliability of the research instruments, data collection procedures and data analysis
procedures.
3.2 Research Design
This study adopted a combination of descriptive survey, which was used to determine the
extent of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment in public primary schools in
Emuhaya Sub County. Correlation cross-sectional research design was used to determine
the influence of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment on pupil‟s discipline.
Descriptive survey research involves gathering data by interviewing or administering a
questionnaire to a sample of individuals Orodho (2003). It involves obtaining information
or data collection by getting responses from persons in a wide geographical area through
questions and interview schedules in order to test hypothesis or answer research questions
of a given study (Orodho & Kombo, 2012).
Correlation research design on the other hand involves collecting data in order to
determine whether and to what degree a relationship exists between two or more
quantifiable variables expressed as a correlation coefficient (Mugenda & Mugenda,
2003). Correlation design was used to find out if there was a relationship between
implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment in schools and
pupil discipline.
37
3.3 Area of Study
The study was carried in public day primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-County. This sub-
county is in Vihiga County, which has three other sub-counties: Sabatia, Hamisi and
Vihiga. It was chosen as the site for the study because it had the highest percentage of
indicators of indiscipline as compared to the two neighboring sub counties. Emuhaya is
found in the former Western Province of Kenya and its largest town is Luanda, located
along the Kisumu - Busia highway. The Sub-County is located on latitude N''150'0 and
S''050 and longitude E''03034 and E''45340. The area is densely populated with a
population of 213,754 according to the 2009 Census and has an area of 273km2. Emuhaya
Sub-county has two constituencies namely Emuhaya and Luanda (National Statistics
Bureau, 2010). The area has 103 public primary schools of which three have recently
been established (still at lower primary level) and 12 are private schools. The area
receives adequate rains and majority of the people are small-scale farmers and petty
traders.
3.4 Study Population
The population target was 501 respondents, who were involved in the study. Population
is a set of complete set of individual subjects we wish to learn about in the research study
(Borg et al, 1989). This comprised of, 100 primary school headteachers, 100 deputy head
teachers, 100 class seven class teachers and 200 pupil leaders (head boys and head girls)
in all public schools in Emuhaya Sub-county. The choice of the deputies and class
teachers was made on the strength that these were the individuals concerned with the
overall discipline of a school. The pupil leaders are the link between the class teachers
and the rest of the pupils. The class teachers in turn report to the deputy headteachers who
finally report to the headteachers. This is the chain of operation in any school. The choice
of class seven class teachers was made putting into consideration that this was a senior
38
class that was not so busy as compared to class eight. Head boys and head girls are
responsible for maintenance of discipline on behalf of the teachers.
The Quality Assurance Officer Emuhaya Sub-county was also involved since he was in
charge of matters of discipline in the whole sub county. The researcher intended to collect
information from a subset of the population in such a way that the knowledge gained was
representative of the total population under study (Cohen, 1994). The targeted population
comprised of 100 head girls and 100 head boys, 100 class teachers, 100 deputy head
teachers, 100 head teachers and one sub- county quality assurance and standards officer.
3.5 Sample Size and Sampling Technique
The study used simple random sampling procedure where the sample group was a
theoretical representative of the population. Random sample was drawn for each stratum;
the sub-sample was joined to form the complete stratified samples (Borg et al, 1989).
When selecting a sample size, various factors have to be considered. These include the
purpose of the study, population size, the risk of selecting a „bad‟ sample, and the
allowable sampling error. In addition, three criteria usually need to be specified to
determine the appropriate sample size: the level of precision, the level of confidence or
risk, and the degree of variability in the attributes being measured (Spatz, 2008).
Therefore, Fisher‟s formula was used to select a study sample that consisted of 142 pupil
leaders (of which half were boys and the other half were girls), 71 class teachers, 71
deputy head teachers and 71 head teachers.
Fisher‟s formula used was as shown below:
N
n
nnf
1
Where 𝑛𝑓 = sample size
39
n = 250
N = population
50
2501
250
nf
715.3
250
Saturated sampling technique was used to select one Sub-County Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer (SCQASO). This excluded the number that participated in the pilot
study, i.e. 10% of the study population (Lackey & Wingate, 1998). A list of public
primary schools was obtained from the sub-county Director‟s Office, Emuhaya.
Table 3.1 shows the population for the sampled area under study. This includes 71 Head
teachers, 71 Deputy head teachers, 71 class teachers, 142 pupil leaders and 1 Quality
Assurance and Standards Officer.
Table 3.1: Sample Frame
Details Population (N) % Sample (n)
Quality Assurance and Standards Officer 1 100 1
Head teachers 100 100 71
Deputy Head Teachers 100 100 71
Class Teachers 100 100 71
Pupil Leaders 200 100 142
3.6 Instruments of Data Collection
The research instruments of the study were questionnaires and interview schedules. The
instruments were used to collect data, which were used to establish the implementation of
ban of physical punishment and mental harassment and its influence on pupil discipline
40
and academic performance in public primary schools. The questionnaires consisted of
open-ended questions. Three types of questionnaires were used namely; Pupil Leaders‟
Questionnaire (PLQ), Class Teachers‟ Questionnaire (CTQ), Deputy Head Teachers‟
Questionnaire (DHTQ) and in-depth interview guides for head teachers and quality
assurance officer. The three questionnaires consisted of closed and open-ended questions.
Open-ended questions enabled the researcher to gather in-depth information on questions
that needed clarification. The questionnaire is a device for securing answers to a series of
questions. Questionnaires were used for the study because they gathered data in a short
time. They also guaranteed a high response rate, (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996). The study
instrument was used for systematic collection of data expected to provide information on
the implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment and its
influence on pupils‟ discipline in public primary schools.
3.6.1 Questionnaire for Pupil Leaders (PLQ)
This questionnaire was used to collect data from 142 pupil leaders (71 head boys and 71
head girls) on discipline problems that were experienced in public primary schools and
what methods were used by the school administrators in management of discipline in
schools. These were administered to class leaders only to gather data on attitudes of
pupils regarding the implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment and its influence on pupils‟ discipline. The questions were closed and open-
ended.
3.6.2 Questionnaires for Class Teachers Questionnaire (CTQ)
This instrument was administered to 71 class teachers to gather data on opinions of the
teacher on implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment and its
influence on management of student discipline. The questions were closed and open-
ended.
41
3.6.3 Questionnaire for Deputy Head Teachers (DHTQ)
This instrument was administered to 71 deputy head teachers of the sampled primary
schools in the sub-county. This questionnaire was used to collect data on personal
information concerning implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment and its influence on pupils‟ discipline in public primary schools. A
questionnaire was used as it covered a wider scope than an interview guide, which best
serves to supplement information, clarify gaps and add insight (Mugenda & Mugenda,
2007). The instrument consisted of both open ended and closed ended items.
3.6.4 Head Teachers Interview Guide
The instrument was administered to 71 Head teachers to get their views on issues that
may need probing as well as gauging the accuracy and genuineness of the responses
(Frankel & Wallen, 2000). It also allowed respondents to elaborate on issues that may not
have been elaborated upon in the questionnaires. The instrument consisted of a few
guiding questions and was used to probe on issues relating to opinion of the respondents
on the implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment and its
influence on pupil discipline in primary schools in Kenya.
3.6.5 Sub-County Quality Assurance Officer Interview Guide
The instrument was administered to the Sub-county quality assurance and standards
officer to get clarification on issues that needed probing as well as gauging the accuracy
and genuineness of the responses (Frankel and Wallen 2000). It also allowed respondents
to elaborate on issues that may not have been elaborated upon in the questionnaires. It
was used to probe on issues relating to opinion of the respondents on the implementation
of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment and its influence on pupil discipline
in primary schools. The instrument consisted of a few guiding questions.
42
3.7 Reliability of the Instruments
Kasomo (2007) defines reliability as the dependability of an instrument or procedure in
order to obtain information. Before engaging in an actual exercise of data collection, the
instruments were first piloted to ascertain their reliability. A pilot study was conducted in
eight primary schools. 8 head teachers, eight deputy headteachers and 16 pupil leaders
were involved. These were not involved in the actual study.
Reliability of a questionnaire was determined by a test-retest method within a range of 20
days. The amount of variation between the two tests was determined using Pearson‟s
Product Moment Correlation (r) to establish stability of the instruments. A Pearson
correlation attempts to draw a line of best between two variables and the Pearson
correlation r, indicates how far away all these points fit. The co-efficient of pupil leaders‟
questionnaire (PLQ) was 0.78, class teachers‟ questionnaire (CTQ) was 0.82, and deputy
head teachers‟ questionnaire (DHTQ) was 0.81.
3.8 Validity of the Instruments
Coolican, (1994) defined validity as the degree to which research instrument measures
what it should measure. Experts in education administration were given the instruments to
determine the validity and their input was incorporated in the final draft of the
instruments. This is in accordance with the recommendations by Mugenda and Mugenda
(2003) who recommends that validity of instruments are determined by experts in their
area of specialization.
3.9 Data Collection Procedures
Before undertaking the actual study in the respective primary schools, the researcher
sought permission through the school of post-graduate studies, Maseno University, and
the Sub-county Director of Education, Emuhaya Sub-county. Once permission was
43
granted, the researcher visited the respective schools for introduction, to book
appointments with them and to brief them about the study. The researcher provided
questionnaires which were completed by the various categories of respondents. The
completed questionnaires were collected for organization, coding and analysis. The
interviews to the subjects were organized and scheduled. These were interviewed as per
their availability. Respondents were assured of confidentiality and anonymity when
reporting the findings of the study.
3.10 Data Analysis
Data analyzed came from completed questionnaires and in-depth interview guides.
Quantitative data were analyzed through descriptive statistics such as frequency counts
and percentages, which were then summarized in tables for cases of interpretation
(Nkapa, 1997). A five point Likert scale was used to rate the extent of ban of physical
punishment and mental harassment, where an increase from 1 to 5 meant that the use of
physical punishment was increasing. The qualitative data from interviews was transcribed
and organized according to themes, categories and sub categories as they emerged during
the study. The findings were to show the influence of ban of physical punishment and
mental harassment on discipline in public primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-county.
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to establish the influence of
ban of physical punishment and mental harassment on the discipline of pupils in public
primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-County.
3.11. Ethical Considerations
Ethics is usually an issue in research design. You need to think about protecting the rights
of the respondents and subjects. Whether you obtain your data from an experiment,
interview, observation or survey, the respondents have many rights to be safeguarded. In
44
general, your research must be designed so as not to affect the respondents physically or
mentally. To safeguard against these, the researcher has to: explain the benefits of the
research, explain the respondent rights and protections and obtain informed consent
(Frankel & Wallen, 2003).
The researcher explained to the respondents the purpose of the study and assured them of
confidentiality. These included confidentiality, honesty, objectivity, respect of intellectual
property, dissemination of findings, anonymity, non-discrimination, voluntary and
informed consent, academic freedom, social responsibility and respect for colleagues
(Sagara, 2012). The ethical consideration in this study involved guaranteeing the
confidentiality of the respondents by ensuring that they did not write their names
anywhere on the questionnaires. Permission from NACOSTI was also sought and
obtained before data collection. The respondents were informed in advance before data
collection. The respondents were assured that they would have access to final thesis.
45
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This section focused on the findings and results of the objectives of the study. The study
objectives were: to determine the extent of implementation of ban of physical punishment
in public primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-County; determine the extent of
implementation of ban of mental harassment in public primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-
County; establish the influence of ban of physical punishment on pupils‟ discipline;
establish the influence of ban of mental harassment on pupils‟ discipline.
4.2 Return Rate of Questionnaire
Questionnaires were given to 142 pupil leaders, 71 class teachers and 71 deputy head
teachers and all of them were returned. Therefore, the response was a hundred percent as
shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Questionnaire Return Rate
Respondents Return Total %
Deputy Head Teachers 71 71 100
Class Teachers 71 71 100
Pupil Leaders 142 142 100
Table 4.1 above shows that all the respondents filled and returned the questionnaires
issued to them. This made the work of the researcher easier as far as analysis of data is
concerned.
46
4.3 Demographic Data
Section one of the questionnaires revealed the demographic information of the
respondents.
4.3.1 Deputy Head Teachers
The demographic data for deputy head teachers were as shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Demographic Information of the Deputy Head Teachers
Demographic Characteristics Categories F %
Age
30 – 34 yrs 15 21.1
35 – 39 yrs 12 16.9
40 yrs and above 44 62.0
Total 71 100
Gender
Male 42 59.2
Female 29 40.8
Total 71 100
Teaching experience 5 – 9 yrs 5 7.0
10 – 14 yrs 27 38.0
15 – 19 yrs 14 19.7
20 yrs and above 25 35.2
Total
71 100
Administrative experience
0 – 4 yrs 21 29.6
5 – 9 yrs 37 52.1
10 – 14 yrs 7 9.9
15 – 19 yrs 6 8.5
Total 71 100
47
Data on Table 4.2 shows that all the deputy head teachers were aged above 30 years and
62% of the deputy head teachers were aged above 40 years. This means that they were
adults who were expected to make sound decisions on matters concerning pupil
discipline. In terms of gender balance, females accounted for 40.8% of the respondents
while the rest were male. On experience, 52.1% of the deputy head teachers had an
administrative experience of between of between 5-9 years and therefore had a vast
wealth of knowledge and experience as far as policy is concerned which was beneficial to
the study. They also had reliable experience in handling discipline issues in the schools.
48
4.3.2 Class teachers
The demographic data for class teachers was as shown in Table 4.3
Table 4.3: Demographic Information of the Class Teachers
Demographic Characteristics Categories F %
Age 24 yrs and below 3 4.2
25 – 29 yrs 11 15.5
30 – 34 yrs 16 22.5
35 – 39 yrs 12 16.9
40 yrs and above 29 40.8
Total 71 100
Gender Male 39 54.9
Female 32 45.1
Total 71 100
Teaching Experience
0 – 4 yrs 21 29.6
5 – 9 yrs 15 21.1
10 – 14 yrs 13 18.3
15 – 19 yrs 13 18.3
20 and above 9 12.7
Total 71 100
Data on Table 4.3 shows that the class teachers were in the age bracket of 20 – 60 years
unlike the deputy head teachers who were in the age bracket of 31-60 years and 29.6% of
the class teachers had a teaching experience of 0 – 4 years (29.6%) Only 9 (12.7%) had a
teaching experience of more than 20 years. Overall 70.4% had a teaching experience of
between 5 and 20 years and this meant that they were well versed with the policy on
49
discipline and could handle discipline matters adequately. There was gender balance in
this category of respondents where 54.9% were male and 45.5% were female.
4.3.3 Pupil leaders
Demographic information for pupil leaders was as shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Demographic Information of the Pupil Leaders
Demographic Characteristics Categories F %
Age
Total
11 – 12 yrs 103 72.5
Above 12 yrs 39 27.5
Total 142 100
Gender Male 71 50.0
Female 71 50.0
Total 142 100
Years in the school 2 – 5 yrs 24 16.9
6 and above 118 83.1
Total 142 100
Table 4.4 shows that 103(72.5%) of pupil leaders were aged between 11 and 12 years. A
few 39(27.5%) were aged more than 12 years and 83.1% of the respondent pupil leaders
had been in the respective schools for more than six years. The information given would
therefore be credible. The pupil leaders also are in charge of discipline in schools in the
absence of teachers and are charged with the responsibility of reporting discipline issues
to the teachers. They could therefore be relied upon to give useful information for this
study.
50
4.4 Extent of Implementation of Ban of Physical Punishment in Public Primary
Schools in Emuhaya Sub-County
The research question responded to was: To what extent is the ban of physical
punishment being implemented in Emuhaya Sub-County? The respondents rated the
implementation, which was analyzed and presented as shown in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Rating of extent of implementation of Ban of Physical Punishment in
Emuhaya Sub-county (Deputy headteachers n=71, Class teachers n=71 and Pupil
leaders n-142)
Type of
Physical
Punishment
Resp
Level of use Total Mean OMR
1 2 3 4 5
Blow
DHT F 42 29 0 0 0 71
S 42 58 0 0 0 100 1.41 2.27
CT F 48 23 0 0 0 71
S 48 46 0 0 0 94 1.32
PL F 16 21 51 30 24 142
S 16 42 153 120 120 451 3.18
Caning
DHT F F 38 18 6 6 3 71
S 38 36 18 24 15 131 1.85 3.62
CT F 21 6 18 14 12 71
S 21 12 54 56 60 203 2.86
PL F 0 0 5 6 131 142
S 0 0 15 24 655 694 4.89
Kicking
DHT F 32 24 9 3 3 71
S 32 48 27 12 15 134 1.89 2.38
CT F 38 19 14 0 0 71
S 38 38 42 0 0 118 1.66
PL F 21 27 45 30 19 142
S 21 54 135 120 95 425 2.99
51
Kneeling
DHT F 0 0 8 26 37 71
S 0 0 24 104 185 313 4.41 4.25
CT F 6 11 12 42 0 71
S 6 22 36 168 0 232 3.27
PL F 0 0 0 49 93 142
S 0 0 0 196 480 661 4.65
Manual labour
DHT F 0 0 0 21 50 71
S 0 0 0 42 250 334 4.70 3.34
CT F 3 6 22 40 0 71
S 3 12 66 160 0 241 3.39
PL F 6 40 96 0 0 142
S 6 80 288 0 0 374 2.63
Pinching
DHT F 19 27 19 6 0 71
S 19 54 57 24 0 154 2.17 3.50
CT F 6 12 15 19 19 71
S 6 24 45 76 95 246 3.46
PL F 0 9 14 61 58 142
S 0 18 42 244 290 594 4.18
Pulling ears
DHT F 13 13 17 17 11 71
S 13 26 51 68 55 213 3.00 3.25
CT F 3 6 23 23 16
S 3 12 69 92 80 256 3.61
PL F 0 38 59 25 20
S 0 76 177 100 100 453 3.19
Slapping
DHT F 31 26 8 6 0 71
S 31 52 24 24 0 131 1.85 2.33
CT F 40 25 3 3 0 71
S 40 50 9 12 0 111 1.56
PL F 21 28 47 27 19 142
S 21 56 141 108 95 421 2.96
52
Smacking
DHT F 40 22 6 3 0 71
S 40 44 18 12 0 114 1.61 2.81
CT F 38 27 3 3 0 71
S 38 54 9 12 0 113 1.59
PL F 0 9 29 54 50 142
S 0 18 87 216 250 571 4.02
Spanking
DHT F 38 25 5 3 0 71
S 38 50 15 12 0 115 1.62 2.36
CT F 43 22 6 0 0 71
S 43 44 6 0 0 105 1.48
PL F 12 25 51 35 19 142
S 12 50 153 140 95 450 3.17
Standing
DHT F 43 28 0 0 0 71
S 43 56 0 0 0 99 1.39 1.71
CT F 35 18 18 0 0 71
S 35 36 54 0 0 125 1.76
PL F 64 46 21 11 0 242
S 64 82 61 44 0 251 1.85
OMR
2.89
KEY:
DHT - Deputy head teachers CL- Class teachers PL- Pupil Leaders
F- Frequency S- Score RESP- Respondents MR- Mean Rating
OMR – Overall Mean Rating
Interpretation of Mean Rating
Mean Rating Frequency of Use Level of Implementation
1.00 – 1.44 Once a year Very high implementation of ban of physical
1.45 – 2.44 Once in four
months
High implementation of ban of physical
punishment
2.45 – 3.44 Once in one month Moderate implementation of ban of physical
punishment
3.45– 4.44 Once in a week Low Implementation of ban of physical
punishment
4.45 -5.00 Daily Very low implementation of ban of physical
punishment
53
Table 4.5 indicates that ban of physical punishment had not been fully implemented in
primary schools in Emuhaya Sub-county. Caning, manual labour, kneeling and pinching
of ears was still being used in most of the schools.
The overall rating on extent of implementation of ban of physical punishment was 2.89.
This translates as moderate according to the rating scale used. Physical punishment is
therefore used once in a month by class teachers and deputy head teachers in primary
schools in Emuhaya Sub-county, which means ban has not been fully implemented.
The overall mean rating for frequency of use of blow, kicking, spanking and standing as
methods of disciplining pupils was 1.45-2.41 which translates to once in 4 months. This
shows that the level of implementation of ban of physical punishment is high. This is
indeed a pointer to the fact that teachers have adhered to the Ministry of Education ban of
the use of physical punishment to maintain discipline in schools.
A close look at the above methods however may show that the teachers may have found
them too extreme to use on the pupils. One head teacher pointed out that kicking a ten
year old would be too extreme and this could be even dangerous to the life of the child.
Media reports may also have impacted on the use of this method where the media
reported the death of a class six pupil in Kibwezi after being kicked by a teacher (citizen
T.V February 28, 2019 15.41 (EAT) With the kind of reports in the media teachers shy
off from using these extreme measures to maintain pupil discipline .
Pulling ears, smacking and manual work as methods of maintaining pupil discipline were
rated at 2.45 – 3.44. This means that they were used once in a month and therefore the
level of implementation of ban of physical punishment was moderate. This scenario
shows that the three form of punishment were popular in maintaining pupil discipline.
These methods are seen to be milder however, some teachers felt that use of manual work
54
was time consuming and hence the method was not popular. The use of smacking and
pulling of ears was done mostly when the pupils aroused the teacher‟s emotions by being
involved in an act of indiscipline that was provoking .A deputy head teacher for example
pointed out that he once smacked a pupil who ignored him, and continued misbehaving in
his presence even after being given a verbal warning.
Kneeling, canning and pinching were the most popular methods used in maintaining pupil
discipline. The three methods were rated at 3.45-4.44 and were used on average once in a
week. This means that the implementation of ban of physical punishment was low
according to the rating scale.
The popularity of the use of these three methods and more so the cane though outlawed
was that it was fast and bore immediate results. According to one deputy head teacher,
“this was the language that the learners understood best and it was also biblical.” Pupils
rated the use of the cane at 4.45 – 5.00, meaning that according to them, the cane was
used daily and therefore the level of implementation of ban of physical punishment was
very low. This response by the pupils highlights the attitude that they have towards
caning. It may have been that some of the pupil leaders exaggerated to seek attention.
The use of the cane has continued even after the ban and some parents advocate for the
same. One teacher pointed out that a parent requested him to cane his child if he
misbehaved in school. According to him, some parents also go to an extent of taking their
children to the police station where they would be flogged to discipline them. This
heightens the dilemma that teachers find themselves in as they attempt to implement the
ban of physical punishment. Several head teachers in their interview indicated that ban of
physical punishment and mental harassment was not easy to implement since the learners
55
became undisciplined once it became obvious they were not going to be punished. The
head teacher thus said:
There is no time allocated to guide and counsel these children by already
overworked teachers. Punishing the pupils is instant and takes very little
time, which makes it effective. Every little child needs a spank to be put in
the right track and even the Holy Books says it „spare the rod and spoil the
child‟. Our way of punishing them is reasonable enough.
The Sub-County QASO indicated that some teachers use various methods to punish
learners secretly. His office had received complaints from parents although no teacher
had been caught. He explained by saying:
The TSC policy is clear to head teachers that no teacher is supposed to use
either physical punishment or mental harassment on learners. This has
made some pupils to misbehave since teachers ignore bad behavior to
prioritize on academic achievement ahead of all other things in their
schools.1111
The sub-county QASO indicated that maintaining discipline had become difficult since
caning was banned in schools and many teachers had not undergone any training in
guiding and counseling. Several head teachers in their interview indicated that ban of
physical punishment was not easy to implement since the learners became undisciplined
once it became obvious they were not going to be punished.
The use of the cane by teachers is reinforced by its use in the home .Teachers use the cane
because it is the only method that is not time wasting and effective. Parents endorse its
use since they also use it at home to maintain the discipline of children. As stated above,
the overall mean rating for the implementation of physical punishment was 2.93. This
shows that implementation of ban of physical punishment level was moderate according
to the rating scale and that physical punishment was used at least once a month. This
shows that ban of physical punishment has not been fully adhered to. Deputy Head
teachers and teachers are still using methods that had been outlawed. This means that the
56
ban on the use of physical punishment in primary schools has not been implemented. This
finding is in agreement with findings from Busenei (2012) and Simatwa (2007) where the
studies investigated the methods used by teachers to manage pupil discipline. This finding
also concurs with a study by Onyango (2016) which investigated the influence of physical
punishment ban on student discipline in secondary schools. This study differs with that of
Onyango (2016) in that the same scenario is investigated at primary school level.
In a study carried out in Muthambi Division, Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya on the extent
of use of physical punishment, it was clear from the findings that physical punishment
was widespread in schools (Mutuma, 2013). In this study majority of the deputy
principals agreed that physical punishment specifically canning was the most effective
form of punishment. The above study clearly shows that with ban of physical punishment,
there were no clear alternatives that seemed to work and therefore teachers went back to
using physical punishment. The findings concurred with those of Ouma et al (2013) in a
study carried out in Kisumu Municipality, Kenya on management of pupil discipline. In
this study, it was found out that most head teachers went against the law by meting
physical forms of punishment on pupils in spite of the ban. The above findings concur
with those of the current study where the implementation of ban of physical punishment
is rated as moderate. This means that in primary schools in Emuhaya Sub county physical
punishment is used at least once in a month.
57
4.5 Extent of Implementation of Ban of Mental Harassment in Public Primary
Schools in Emuhaya Sub-County
The research question responded to in this section was: To what extent is the ban of
mental harassment being implemented in Emuhaya Sub-County? To establish the extent
of ban of mental harassment was being implemented in Emuhaya Sub-County, first the
responses were rated and the data was as shown in Table 4.6.
58
Table 4.6: Rating of extent of implementation of ban of Mental Harassment in
Emuhaya Sub-County (Deputy headteachers n=71, Class Teachers n=71 and Pupil
leaders n=142)
Type of Mental
Harassment
Resp Level of use Total MR OMR
1 2 3 4 5
Being isolated DHT F 0 3 9 26 33 71
S 0 9 26 104 165 302 4.25 4.15
CT F 0 3 9 26 33 71
S 0 6 27 104 93 165 4.25
PL F 0 8 31 49 54 142
S 0 16 93 196 270 575 4.05
Intimidating DHT F 6 12 14 21 18 71
S 6 24 42 82 90 246 3.46 3.69
CT F 6 12 14 21 18 71
S 6 24 42 82 90 246 3.46
PL F 0 23 24 36 59 142
S 0 46 72 144 295 557 3.92
Making a pupil feel
ashamed
DHT F 0 3 12 24 32 71
S 0 6 36 96 160 298 4.20 4.19
CT F 0 3 12 24 32 71
S 0 6 36 96 160 298 4.20
PL F 0 5 30 42 65 142
S 0 10 90 168 325 593 4.18
Name calling DHT F 0 6 14 26 25 71
S 0 12 42 104 100 283 3.99 4.04
CT F 0 6 14 26 25 71
S 0 12 42 104 100 283 3.99
PL F 0 12 30 33 67 142
S 0 24 90 132 268 581 4.09
59
Negative comments DHT F 8 12 17 15 19 71
S 8 24 51 60 95 238 3.35 3.61
CT F 8 12 17 15 19 71
S 8 24 51 60 95 238 3.35
PL F 6 20 16 45 55 142
S 6 40 48 180 275 549 3.87
Reprimanding
DHT F 6 12 16 19 18 71
S 6 24 48 76 90 244 3.44 3.59
CT F 6 12 16 19 18 71
S 6 24 48 76 90 244 3.44
PL F 9 14 27 47 45 142
S 9 28 51 188 225 531 3.74
Sent out of class DHT F 0 6 19 24 22 71
S 0 12 57 96 110 275 3.87 4.07
CT F 0 6 19 24 22 71
S 0 12 57 96 110 275 3.87
PL F 0 0 33 38 71 142
S 0 0 99 152 355 606 4.27
OMR
3.87
KEY:
DHT - Deputy head teachers CL- Class teachers PL- Pupil Leaders
F- Frequency S- Score RESP- Respondents MR- Mean Rating
OMR – Overall Mean Rating
Interpretation of Mean Rating
Mean rating Frequency of use Level of implementation
1.00 – 1.44 Once a year Very high implementation of ban of mental
1.45 -2.44 Once in four months High implementation of ban of mental
2.45 -3.44 Once in one month Moderate implementation of ban of mental
3.45 -4.44 Once in a week Low implementation of ban of ban of
mental harassment
4.45 -5.00 Daily Very low implementation of ban of ban of
mental harassment
60
Table 4.6 shows that the ban of mental harassment in public primary schools has not been
fully implemented. The overall mean rating on extent of implementation of ban of mental
harassment was 3.87. This translates as low implementation according to the rating scale
used. This finding concurs with that of Onyango (2016) in his study Influence of Mental
Harassment Ban on Students Discipline in Public Secondary Schools in Gem, Ugenya,
and Siaya Sub counties. This study found out that: deputy principals, guidance and
counseling teachers and class representatives rated the extent of mental harassment ban
implementation to be low with respect to disobedience. This study found a similar
scenario in primary schools where mental harassment is used once a week in primary
schools in Emuhaya sub county, meaning that the ban has not been fully implemented.
The use of isolation as a method of maintaining discipline in primary school was rated at
4.25 by the deputy head teachers 4.15 by the class teachers and 4.05 by the student
leaders. This translated to a mean rating of 4.15 putting the level of use at once per week.
Intimidation was rated at 3.69, which was the mean rating for the deputy head teachers,
class teachers and student leaders. Shaming was the highest rated at a mean rate of 4.19,
meaning that this was the most popular method used in primary schools to maintain pupil
discipline. An interesting scenario was observed in the use of name-calling as a method of
maintaining discipline. This is where the student leaders rated the method at 5.00,
meaning that the method was basically used on a daily basis in maintaining pupil
discipline. This finding concurs with that of Onyango (2016) and Mugambi (2012) and
Ndichu (2004) who found out that mental harassment is a popular method that is used by
teachers in maintaining discipline in schools. This scenario can be explained thus, mental
harassment is the lesser evil as compared to the use of physical force, which can lead to
injuries to the pupils and negative consequences to the perpetrator.
61
According to the Sub-county Quality Assurance Officer, the major challenges found to
be facing administrators as far as pupil discipline is concerned in Emuhaya Sub-county is
lack of cooperation from parents, lack of cooperation from students, lack of support of the
school administration from the local community and poor implementation of the
discipline policy by the government. Many teachers were at a loss on what forms of
punishment amount to mental harassment. He pointed out that use of mental harassment
was seen as the lesser evil since afterwards there would be no prove that the teacher had
punished the pupil. Most headteachers were of the opinion that mental harassment as a
method of disciplining pupils worked since most pupils could not bear the shame and
demoralization associated with it and hence chose to be disciplined.
4.6 Influence of Ban of Physical Punishment on Pupils’ Discipline in Public Primary
Schools in Emuhaya Sub- County
The research question responded to in this section was: What is the influence of the ban
of physical punishment on pupils‟ discipline? In order to establish the influence of ban of
physical punishment on pupil discipline, first the study established the level of discipline
in schools as shown in Table 4.7.
62
Table 4.7: Mean Rating of Level of Pupils’ Discipline in Public Primary Schools in
Emuhaya Sub- County (n=71)
Rating Frequency Percentage
1.00 – 1.44 0 0
1.45 – 2.44 0 0
2.45 – 3.44 1 1.41
3.45 – 4.44 67 94.37
4.45 – 5.00 3 4.23
Total 71 100.00
Key:
1.00-1.44 Very high discipline
1.45 -2.44 High discipline
2.45-3.44 Moderate discipline
3.45-4.44 Low discipline
4.45-5.00 Very low discipline
Table 4.7 shows that the level of discipline in public primary schools was rated at
moderate by 1(1.41%) of the respondents while the majority of the respondents 67(94.37)
rated it as low and 3(4.23%) gave their rating as very low. The overall rating on level of
discipline was 4.17. This translates to low level of discipline according to the rating scale
used. This means that the level of pupil discipline in Emuhaya Sub County was low as per
the findings of this study. This finding concurs with that of Simatwa (2007) and Mugambi
(2013) and Onyango (2016). Who found out that the discipline of learners was on a
downward trend.
63
Secondly the study established the relationship between implementation of ban of
physical punishment and level of pupil discipline. The results were as shown in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Correlation of Level of Implementation of Ban of Physical Punishment
and Level of Pupils’ Discipline in Public Primary Schools in Emuhaya Sub- County
Ban of Physical punishment Level of discipline
Pearson Correlation
.607
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 71
Table 4.8 shows that there was a strong positive relationship between physical
punishment and level of discipline of pupils according to the respondents. The
relationship was significant (r = 0.607, N = 71 and P < 0.05). This means that ban of
physical punishment greatly influenced the level of discipline of pupils. That is, increase
in implementation of physical punishment ban increased the level of discipline among
pupils. This is because the Pearson‟s r coefficient was positive and moderate. This
concurs with the findings established by descriptive analysis.
Regression analysis was then computed to estimate the influence of level of
implementation of physical punishment on level of discipline and the results were as
shown in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Regression Analysis of Influence of Ban of Physical Punishment on Level
of Pupil Discipline in Public Primary Schools in Emuhaya Sub County
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .607a .368 .359 .17870
a. Predictors: (Constant), Ban of Physical punishment
64
From Table 4.9 it can be noted that the contribution of physical punishment was 35.9% as
indicated by adjusted R2
0.359. This means that physical punishment accounted for
35.9% of the variation in pupil level of discipline. The other 64.1 % was accounted for by
other factors that were not the subject of this study. It further means that ban of physical
punishment influences pupils‟ discipline.
To confirm whether ban of physical punishment was a significant predictor of level of
pupil discipline, ANOVA was computed as shown in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: ANOVA of Physical Punishment and Pupils’ Discipline in Public
Primary School in Emuhaya Sub-County
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 1.282 1 1.282 40.156 .000b
Residual 2.203 69 .032
Total 3.486 70
a. Dependent Variable: Level of pupil discipline
b. Predictors: (Constant), Ban of Physical punishment
From Table 4.10, it can be noted that physical punishment implementation was a
significant predictor of pupils‟ discipline (F (1, 69) 40.156, p<.05). This means that ban
of physical punishment can be relied on to predict pupil discipline.
The study further sought to establish the actual influence of implementation of ban of
physical punishment on pupils‟ discipline. In this case, regression analysis was computed
and the results were as shown in Table 4.11.
65
Table 4.11: Simple Regression Analysis of Physical Punishment Implementation and
the Level of Pupils’ Discipline in Public Primary Schools in Emuhaya Sub County
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.997 .343 5.821 .000
Physical punishment .740 .117 .607 6.337 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Level of pupil discipline
b. Regression Equation: Y= βo +β1x1
From Table 4.11, it can be noted that one unit increase in physical punishment
implementation ban improved pupils‟ discipline by 0.740 units. This means that the
influence of the ban of physical punishment had a strong influence on the level of pupil
discipline in public primary schools. The Regression Equation is Y = 1.997 + 0.740. The
Sub County Quality Assurance Officer Emuhaya observed that reported cases of in
disciple had escalated in the sub county. This according to him could be attributed to the
fact that use of physical punishment had been prohibited and the pupils were not afraid of
misbehaving since nothing would be done to them.
Most headteachers were of the opinion that the policy needed to be re-addressed since
teachers had few options left as far as management of pupil discipline was concerned.
One headteacher‟s remarked thus:
Something needs to be done to ensure sanity in the schools. Most of our
pupils are so indiscipline. A teacher cannot even walk with a stick for
purposes of intimidating them to behave well since this can also amount to
harassment.
66
The problem of discipline is not unique to Kenya. It is a global issue of great concern
spanning political, economical, geographical, racial and even gender boundaries
(Muchemi, 2001). In Sweden, ban on use of physical punishment was put into effect in
the year 1979. The primary aim of the ban was to decrease child abuse and promote
supportive approaches for parents and educators rather than coercive state intervention
(Larzelere, 1999). Evidence suggests that the ban totally failed to achieve its aim.
Larzelere (1999) argues that far from any decrease in violence is a sharp increase in child
abuse and child-on-child violence. This study concurs with the current study.
In South Africa, a ban on physical punishment in school saw a sharp increase in acts of
student indiscipline. Petro Marais, (2010). According to the study, some students died and
others became blind after consuming toxic amount of methanol and ethanol after breaking
into the school science laboratory. Although the South African government lunched a
booklet alternatives to physical punishment, the booklet did not help much to improve the
discipline of the learners. The same scenario was evident in this study where the use of
guidance and counseling in schools as an alternative to the use of physical punishment
was not producing the desired results. Majority of school counselors are teachers of
religion who are appointed by the head teacher on ad hoc basis to “take care” of
counseling needs of the students. They lack training in basic counseling skills and
expertise to use computers and internet (KIE, 2003).
Mugambi (2013) in his study found that teachers went back to the use of physical
punishment such as caning, kneeling, manual work, punching and kicking because of the
raise in indiscipline and failing academic standards. Onyango (2016) in his study
influence of physical punishment ban on student discipline in secondary schools in
Kenya; A case study of Ugenya, Gem and Siaya sub counties found out that the
67
implementation of the ban of physical punishment increased students discipline. This
concurs with the current study.
4.7 Influence of Ban of Mental Harassment on Pupils’ Discipline in Public Primary
Schools in Emuhaya Sub County
The research question responded to in this section was: What is the influence of the ban
of mental harassment on pupils‟ discipline? In order to establish the influence of ban of
mental harassment on pupil discipline, first the study established the level of discipline in
schools as shown in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12: The Rating of Level of Pupils’ Discipline in Public Primary Schools in
Emuhaya Sub-county (n=71)
Rating Frequency Percentage
1.00 – 1.44 0 0
1.45 – 2.44 0 0
2.45 – 3.44 1 1.41
3.45 – 4.44 67 94.37
4.45 – 5.00 3 4.23
Total 71 100.00
Key:
1.00 – 1.44 Very high discipline
1.45 – 2.44 High discipline
2.45 – 3.44 Moderate discipline
3.45 – 4.44 Low discipline
4.45 – 5.00 Very low discipline
Table 4.12 shows that the level of discipline in public primary schools is low. The
respondents indicated the largest percentage, 94.37, were rated to have low discipline and
68
only 1.41 percent was rated to have moderate discipline. None rated the level of discipline
to be neither „High‟ nor „Very high.‟ The overall rating on level of discipline was 4.17.
To establish the influence of the ban of mental harassment on pupil discipline, the data on
implementation of ban of mental harassment Table 4.6 was correlated with the data on
level of pupil discipline Table 4.12 and the results were as shown in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Correlation of Ban of Mental Harassment and Level of Pupils’
Discipline Public in Primary in Emuhaya Sub-County
Ban of Mental harassment Level of discipline
Pearson Correlation -.065
Sig. (1-tailed) .295
N 71
Table 4.13 shows that there was a weak negative relationship between mental harassment
and level of discipline of pupils according to the respondents. The relationship was not
significant (r = - 0.065, N = 71 and P > 0.05). This means that ban of mental harassment
does not influence the level of discipline of pupils.
A negative correlation between variables means that one variable increases whenever the
other decreases. This means that as implementation of ban of mental harassment
increases, the level of pupil discipline goes down. This finding differs with that of
Onyango (2016) in his study Influence of Mental Harassment Ban on Student Discipline
in Secondary Schools in Kenya: A case study of Ugenya, Gem and Siaya Sub-counties
concluded that an increase in implementation of mental harassment ban increases the
level of student discipline. This means that if the ban is fully implemented the level of
student discipline will be very high. In Onyango‟s study, the investigation was carried out
69
in secondary schools while the current study was carried out in primary school. This
could be a pointer to the fact that the use of mental harassment as a method of
maintaining pupil discipline works in primary schools as compared to the use of the same
in secondary schools.
Anyango et al (2013) in their study Management of Pupil Discipline in Kenya: A case
Study of Kisumu Municipality found out that reprimanding, detention and exclusion were
some of the methods used in maintaining pupil discipline. These methods amounted to
mental harassment. Although these methods were used in schools, the level of pupil
discipline was on a downward trend. The current study however reveals that use of
mental harassment increases discipline in pupils. This is the new knowledge that this is
the new knowledge that this study has revealed.
One of the head teachers revealed that some teachers liked using abusive language on the
girls more so when they failed exams. Some of the girls would break down into tears and
several cases had been reported in his office. He added that majority of the pupils feared
the use of abusive language on them and therefore strived to remain disciplined. Mayer
(1995) stipulates that a verbal reprimand that is professionally delivered can go a long
way in bringing the desired behavior in children. The study continues to point out that
this method should however not be used alone since overdependence on the same would
make it lose its effectiveness. It is therefore prudent to conclude that some aspects of
mental harassment coupled with other positive methods like guidance and counseling
may be used to maintain pupil discipline in primary schools.
70
4.8 Influence of Physical Punishment and Mental Harassment on Level of Discipline
in Public Primary Schools in Emuhaya Sub-County.
Normally, ban of physical punishment and mental harassment are implemented
simultaneously. Therefore, the influence of physical punishment and mental harassment
were used together in regression to establish their influence on pupil discipline. The data
for ban of physical punishment (Table 4.5, ban on mental harassment Table 4.6, and level
of pupil discipline Table 4.8) were considered in computing regression analysis. The
output of regression analysis was as shown in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14: Model Summary of Physical Punishment and Mental Harassment on
Pupil Discipline in Public Primary Schools in Emuhaya Sub-County
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .684a .468 .452 .16518
a. Predictors: (Constant), ban of Mental harassment and Physical punishment
From Table 4.14 it can be noted that the ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment accounted for 45.2% of the variation in pupil discipline as indicated by
adjusted R2 .452. The other 54.8% was due to other factors in this study.
To confirm whether the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment was a
significant predictor of level of pupil discipline, ANOVA was computed as shown in
Table 4.15.
71
Table 4.15: ANOVA of the influence of the Ban of Physical Punishment and Mental
Harassment on Pupils’ Discipline in Public Primary Schools in Emuhaya Sub-
County
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 1.630 2 .815 29.877 .000b
Residual 1.855 68 .027
Total 3.486 70
a. Dependent Variable: Level of Pupil discipline
b. Predictors: (Constant), Ban of Mental harassment and Physical punishment
From Table 4.15, it can be noted that implementation of ban of physical punishment and
mental harassment was a predictor of pupils‟ discipline (F (1, 68) 29.877, p<.05). This
shows that implementation of ban of physical punishment and mental harassment can be
relied on to predict the level of pupil discipline.
To establish the actual influence mental harassment and physical punishment
implementation had on pupils‟ discipline, simple regression was computed. The results
were as shown in Table 4.16.
72
Table 4.16: Simple Regression Analysis of Implementation of Ban of Physical
Punishment and Mental Harassment and the Level of Pupils’ Discipline in Public
Primary Schools in Emuhaya Sub-County.
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 2.825 .393 7.192 .000
Physical
punishment
.896 .116 .735 7.695 .000
Mental harassment -.336 .094 -.341 -3.572 .001
a. Dependent Variable: Level of pupil discipline
b. Regression Equation is Y = βo+β1X1+β2X2
From Table 4.16, it can be noted that one unit increase in ban of physical punishment
improved pupils‟ discipline by .896 units as signified by the coefficient .896. The ban on
mental harassment on the other hand reduced the level of pupil discipline in such a way
that for every one unit increase in the ban of mental harassment pupil discipline declined
or reduced by .336 units as signified by the coefficient -.336. The Regression Equation is
Y = 2.825 + 0.896X1+-0.336X2
From the above findings, it can be noted that if physical punishment and mental
harassment ban is implemented concurrently the improvement in pupil discipline would
be higher than when the ban is not concurrently implemented. Although, from this study
ban of mental harassment is seen to reduce pupil discipline when ban is on both physical
punishment and mental harassment there is a remarkable improvement in pupil discipline.
The study found that if educators implemented the ban of physical punishment and
mental harassment, there would be an improvement in pupil discipline. This finding
differs with that of Makapela‟s (2006) who found out that learners literally take
73
advantage of educators because they know l that whatever punishment is given, will not
equal the pain of corporal punishment.
The findings of this study concurs with those of Onyango (2016) who established that
there was a strong relationship between physical punishment and mental harassment ban
and the level of student discipline in secondary schools. Thus, the higher the extent of
physical punishment ban the higher the level of student discipline.
In view of these findings, it could be argued that learners have realized the importance of
being responsible citizens. Nieuwenhuis, Beckmann and Prinsloo (2007) observe that
schools have a crucial role to perpetuate societal values and this can only be done if
learners are taught to be responsible for their own behaviors. Similarly, Du Bois (2006)
argues that a school system should mirror the society and teachers in the school should be
in total control of learners. In every society, every citizen is expected to live within the
confines of laws, bylaws, rules and regulations with the transgression of these laws
yielding consequences that are at times too ghastly to contemplate. The issue of children‟s
rights within the context of disciplinary measures should be put into consideration.
Teachers should know the consequences of going against the laid down laws and
regulations (Elvel & Jordan, 2002). Educators could make use of co-operative
disciplinary measures as compared to punitive and harsh disciplinary measures. Punitive
measures may not always achieve the intended objectives. Co-operative discipline is a
theory of discipline that seems to work for children today because it offers corrective,
supportive, and most important, preventive strategies (Canter & Canter, 2001). Preventive
measures to dealing with learner indiscipline are more proactive and useful than reactive
ones that may not repair the damage caused (Scharle & Szabo, 2000). With the changing
needs of society, new techniques and strategies should work for children in order to
74
achieve order and control in today's classrooms. It is therefore true to argue that with the
implementation of ban of physical punishment and, mental harassment, there will be a
peaceful and conducive environment for proper interaction and learning to take place.
75
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter gives the summary, conclusions and recommendations of the study based on
the findings.
5.2 Summary of Findings
The findings of the study were summarized as follows.
5.2.1 Extent of implementation of ban of physical punishment
The study found out that the overall rating on extent of implementation of ban of physical
punishment was 2.89. This translated as „used once a month‟ according to the rating scale
used where 1 was once a year, 2 once in four months, 3 was once a month, 4 was once a
week and 5 was daily. Physical punishment was sometimes used in primary schools
which meant ban had not been fully implemented. It further means that teachers were
still using methods that were prohibited in taming errant learners. These included caning,
manual work, kneeling, slapping among others.
5.2.2 Extent of implementation of ban of mental harassment
The study found out that the overall rating on extent of implementation of ban of mental
harassment was 3.82. This translated to low level of implementation according to the
rating scale used where 1 was once a year, 2 once in four months, 3 was once a month, 4
was once a week and 5 daily. Mental harassment was frequently used in primary schools,
which meant that the ban had not been implemented. Teachers were still using aspects of
mental harassment such as reprimanding, name calling and shaming.
76
5.2.3 Influence of Ban of Physical Punishment on Pupils Discipline
The study established that there was a strong positive relationship between physical
punishment and level of discipline of pupils. The relationship was significant. This means
that ban of physical punishment greatly influenced the level of discipline of pupils. The
study found out that the ban of physical punishment accounted for 35.9% of the variation
in level of pupil discipline. The other 64.1% was accounted for by other factors such as
teachers‟ attitude, school tradition, and location of the school among others. These factors
were however not the subject of this study.
5.2.4 Influence of Ban of Mental Harassment on Pupils Discipline
The study established that there was a weak negative relationship between mental
harassment and level of discipline of pupils with Pearson‟s r coefficient of -.065 and p-
value of .295 meaning it was not significant. This meant that ban of mental harassment
could not be used to explain pupil‟s level of discipline. However the regression analysis
involving both of ban of physical and mental harassment on pupil discipline had an
influence on pupil discipline as it accounted for 45.2% of the variation in pupils discipline
whereas the ban of physical harassment on its own accounted for 35.9%. This means that
the ban of mental harassment had an influence on pupil discipline that was not otherwise
revealed when data on ban of mental harassment was regressed against pupils level of
discipline.
5.3 Conclusions
5.3.1 Extent of implementation of Ban of Physical Punishment
Having analyzed and interpreted the findings obtained from the data collected, it was
concluded that physical punishment was still being used in primary schools. The findings
77
from pupil leaders showed that physical punishment was also used daily. The overall
mean rating of the ban of physical punishment was rated at moderate.
5.3.2 Extent of Implementation of Ban of Mental harassment.
Aspects of mental harassment were being used in schools. Meaning that the ban had not
been implemented. According to the head teachers interviewed, teachers were still
frequently using mental harassment to discipline pupils in primary schools and the rate of
implementation was low. This is because this was seen as a lesser evil as compared to the
use of physical punishment. This finding was significant to the study since it presented
the most credible state of affairs. The deputy head teachers and class teacher‟s responds
could have been biased for fear of victimization.
5.3.3 Influence of Ban of Physical Punishment on Pupil Discipline
The Ban of physical punishment had significant influence on discipline of pupils. There
was a strong positive relationship between ban of physical punishment and level of
discipline pupils.
5.3.4 Influence of Ban of Mental Harassment on Pupils Discipline
The ban of mental harassment had no significant influence on discipline of pupils. When
ban of physical punishment and mental harassment is done together, it would improve
pupil discipline with a greater margin.
5.4 Recommendations
5.4.1 Extent of implementation of Ban of Physical Punishment
Considering the study findings and conclusions, the study recommends that: Ban of
physical punishment should be implemented fully in our schools.
78
5.4.2 Extent of Implementation of Ban of Mental harassment.
Ban of mental harassment should be implemented fully in our schools as per the Ministry
of education.
5.4.3 Influence of Ban of Physical Punishment on Pupil Discipline.
Ban of physical punishment should be fully implemented to improve pupil discipline.
5.4.4 Influence of Ban of Mental Harassment on Pupils Discipline
Mental harassment should be banned together with physical punishment to improve
pupils‟ discipline.
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research
In view of the limitations and delimitations, this study suggests the following areas for
further research
i. A similar study should be carried out involving post primary institutions
ii. Finally, further studies should be conducted on the reasons why teachers are
reluctant to implement the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment
in schools.
79
REFERENCES
Afullo, O.P.T. (2005). Role of the Teacher in Management of Student Discipline in
Public Schools in Bondo District. Unpublished Master‟ Thesis, Maseno
University, Kenya.
Agota, S., & Anita, S. (2002). Learning Autonomy: A Guide to Developing Learner
Responsibility: Cambridge University Press.
Ajowi, J.O. & Omboto, C. J. (2013). Preparedness of Teachers to Maintain Discipline in
the Absence of Corporal Punishment in Bondo District. Unpublished Masters
Thesis School of Education, Jamoragi Oginga Odinga University of Science and
Technology, Kenya.
Andero, A.A., & Stewart, A. (2002). Issues of Corporal Punishment: A Re-examination
of South African Schools. Unpublished Master‟s thesis. Johannesburg
University, South Africa.
Asmal, K. (2000). International Law and Practice: Dealing with the Past in the South-
African Experience. Unpublished PhD Thesis The University of Cape Town,
South Africa.
Barasa, M.M. (2013). Factors Influencing Drug Abuse among Students in Public
Secondary Schools in Mombasa District, Mombasa County, Kenya. Unpublished
Master‟s Thesis, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
Berard, R.M.F., Pringle, E.E., & Ahmed, N. (2005). A Preliminary Investigation of High
School Counseling Resource on the Cape Peninsula. Roslyn Heights, New York
Libra Publishers.
Bichanga, E.K. (2005). Students Attitudes towards Guidance and Counseling in Public
Schools; A Case Study of Ngong Division Kajiado District. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis. University of Nairobi, Kenya.
80
Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational Research. An Introduction. (5th
Ed). New
York: Longman.
Busienei, A. (2012). Alternative Methods to Corporal Punishment and their Efficacy.
Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3 (2);
155-161.
Canter, C. M. (2001). The Impact of Assertive Classroom Discipline on Social Skills in
High School Students in State of Arizona. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, State
University of New York, USA.
Cavalier & Manning, M. (2005). Developing Self Discipline and Preventing and
correcting misbehavior. Boston: Ally and Bacon.
Charles, C.M. (2002). Essential elements of Effective discipline. The University of
Virginia: Allyn & Bacon.
Chepkirui, K. (2011). Assessment of Guidance and Counseling Services in Bureti
District. Unpublished Masters Thesis Moi University, Kenya.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London. Routledge.
Coolican H. (1994). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, University Press.
Cambridge.
Cotton, K. (2005). School wide and Classroom Discipline. Portland: Northeast
Educational Laboratories, South Africa.
Daily Nation. (2016, October 28th). Teacher Field. Daily Nation, Nairobi. P3.
Douglas, M. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise .New York; Mc Graw Hill,
Dunham, V. (1984). Stress in Teaching. London, Croom Helm.
Fontana, D. (1985). Class control: Understanding and guiding classroom behavior.
London: The British Psychological Society.
81
Fraenkel, R.J. & Wallen, E.M. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. (2nd
Edition.) New York Mc Graw Hill Inc.
Gall, M.O., Borg, R.W., & Gall, P.J. (1996). Education Research. An Introduction (6th
Edition.) New York Longman Publishers.
Gikonyo, O.M. (2002). Drug abuses and Parental Knowledge of Drugs in Nairobi
Province, Kenya (Master‟s thesis). Kenyatta University, Kenya.
Glass, G.V. & Hopkins, K.D. (1984). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology
(second Ed) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gresham, F.M. (2004). Methodological Issues in Functional Analysis: Generalizability to
other Disability Groups. Behavioral Disorder, New York Libra Publishers. Inc.
Griffin, G. (1994). School Mastery: Straight Talk about Boarding School Management in
Kenya: Lectern Publications Limited.
Hornsby, G. (2013). Teachers and Counseling. Routledge: Falmer.
Human Rights Watch, (2004, September). Spare the Child Corporal Punishment in
Kenya Chapter Vol.6.
Ireri, N. & Muola, J.M. (2010). Factors Affecting Guidance and Counseling Programme
in Primary Schools in Nairobi Province, Kenya: Master‟s Thesis Kenyatta
University, Kenya.
Shishanya, J. (2010). Exploring Discipline Alternatives in Kenyan Schools. Unpublished
Master‟s Thesis, Moi University, Kenya.
Kaburu, L.W. (2006). Effectiveness of Guidance and Counseling Program in Combating
Indiscipline in Secondary Schools: A Case of Nakuru Municipality, Kenya
Unpublished Master‟s thesis. Egerton University, Kenya.
Kasomo, D. (2007). Research Methods and Statistics in Humanities and Education. (2nd
Edition) Nairobi: Kijabe Printing Press.
82
Kindiki, J.N. (2009). Effectiveness of Communication on Students Discipline in
Secondary Schools in Kenya. Educational Research and Review, 4(5): 252- 259.
Kimani, G., Kara, A. & Teresa, B. (2012). Teachers‟ and Pupils‟ Views on Persistent of
Corporal Punishment in Management of Discipline in Schools in Starehe
Division in Kenya. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis, Kenyatta University, Kenya.
Kimaryo, M. (1998). Discipline without Beating. Amazon Press. United Kingdom.
Kurui, C. (2012). Influence of School Management Strategies on Students Discipline: A
Case of Secondary Schools in Mogotio District, Kenya. Unpublished Master‟s
thesis. Mount Kenya University, Kenya.
Kiumi, J.K. (2008). Relationship between the Principals‟ Management Approaches and
Students‟ Discipline in Public Secondary Schools in Nyandarua and Laikipia
Districts, Kenya (Unpublished PhD thesis). Egerton University, Kenya.
Khatete, I. & Matanda, D. (2014). Influence of the Ban of Corporal Punishment on Level
of Discipline in Secondary Schools in Kenya. Masters Thesis Maseno university
Kenya.
Kriener, A. (2000). Everything You Need to Know About School Violence. New York:
Rose Publishing Group Inc.
Kopansky, T.M. (2002). Corporal Punishment in Schools: A hit or Miss Proposition
London: Longman.
Lackey, N., & Wingate, A. (1998). The Pilot Study: One Key to Research Success.
Larzelene, R.E. & Johnson, B. (1999). Evaluation of the Effects of Sweden‟s Spanking
Ban on Physical Child Abuses; University of Wisconsin Press, Madson.
Lochan, D. (2010). Students' Perceptions of Indiscipline at Three Primary Schools in One
Educational District in Central Trinidad. St. Augustine, University of the West
Indies.
83
Mabelane, P. (2000). “A school-based Approach to addressing sexual harassment with
safe schools programming” A paper delivered at an education conference by the
Department of Education Sciences. Rand Africans University, 5-6 September
2000.
Marais, P. & Mayer, C. (2010). Disruptive behaviour in the Foundation Phase Schooling.
South African Journal of Education, 30: 108-134.
Masitsa, G. (2008). Discipline and Disciplinary Measures in the Free State Township
Schools; Unresolved Problems. Acta Academia, 40(2):234-270.
Mayer, G.R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 28: 467-492.
Mbiti, D. M. (1974). Foundations of school administration. Nairobi: Oxford University
Press.
McGrath (1999). The Removal of Corporal Punishment from the School System:
Something Lost or Something Gained?”
MOEST (2005). Seasonal Paper No. 1 (2005). A policy Framework for Education
Training and Research. Government printers, Nairobi.
MOEST (2005). Kenya Educational Sector Support Programme 2005/2016. Delivering
Quality Education and Training to all Kenyans Nairobi.
Morel. R. (2001). Corporal Punishment in South African School; a Neglected Explanation
for its Existence, South African Journal of Education.
Mstweteni, J. (2008). The Role of Educators in Management of School Discipline in
Nkangala Region of Mpumalanga. M.ED Dissertation, University of South
Africa.
Muchemi, J. (2001). Students Face Life in Prison over Strikes. The Daily Nation
Newspaper. Nation Center. Nairobi. Friday May 21. P. 5.
84
Mucmahron, S. (2009). Wild pupils Trouble School, Herald Sun September.
Mudis, P. A. & Yambo, J.M.O. (2015). Role of Peer Counseling on the Relationship
between Prefects and the Students‟ body in public Secondary schools in Migori
Sub- County, Migori County, Kenya.
Mugambi, M. J. (2013). An Assessment of the Extent of use of Corporal Punishment in
Secondary Schools in Muthambi Division in Maara District, Tharaka Nithi
County, Kenya. Unpublished M.ED Thesis. Kenyatta University. Nairobi.
Mugenda, A. & Mugenda, O. (2003). Research Methods – Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches, Nairobi: Act Press.
Murithi, E.W. (2010). Challenges Principals Face in Enhancing Student Discipline in
Secondary Schools in Tagania District, Kenya Unpublished Master‟s Thesis.
Chuka University, Kenya.
Mukundi, C.N. (1999). A Study of the Influence of Head teachers Administrative
Behaviour of Pupils Academic Performance. Unpublished Master of Education
Thesis University of Nairobi.
Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing Roles and Impact on Teacher and School
Effectiveness Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective 69 Teachers.
Faculty of Education, Education and Training Policy Division Tasmania: OECD.
Namibia Ministry of Education and Culture, Discipline without beating.
Naong, M. (2007): The Impact of Corporal Punishment on Teacher Morale: South
African Journal of Education, 27 (2): 283-300.
Nkapa, N. (2007). Educational Research for Modern Scholars. Enugu: Fourth Dimension.
5th February 2007.
85
Nduku, M.J. (2004). An investigation into Alternative Strategies of Discipline in the
Absence of Corporal Punishment in the Public Secondary Schools in Matungulu
Division, Machakos, District, Kenya. Unpublished Master‟s.
O‟Brien, B., & Carl, R. (2013). “Renewed pressure for ban on smacking of children’s
groups complained to Council of Europe over reasonable chastisement”.
Ogetange, T.B. (2012). Teachers and Pupils‟ Views on Persistent use of Corporal
Punishment in Managing Discipline in Primary Schools in Starehe Division,
Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(2): 23-42.
Okumbe, J.A. (1999). Educational Management Theory and Practice. Nairobi: University
Press.
Omboto, J.C. (2013). Preparedness of Teachers to Maintain Discipline in the Absence of
Corporal Punishment in Bondo District, Kenya. Unpublished Master‟s Thesis.
Maseno University, Kenya.
Ombuya, B. D., Yambo, J.M.O. & Omolo, T. M. (2012). Effects of Orphan hood on Girl-
child‟s Access and Retention in Secondary School Education: A case of Rongo
District, Kenya. International journal of Academic Research in Progressive
education and Development
Onyango, D.O., Simatwa, E.M.W. & Gogo, J.O. (2016). Influence of Physical
Punishment Ban on Student Discipline in Public Secondary Schools in Kenya: A
Case study of Ugenya, Gem and Siaya Sub-Counties. Educational Research
Paper (ISSN: 2141-5161) Vol.7(3): 055-071.
Orodho, J.A. (2009). Elements of Educational and Social Sciences Research Methods,
Nairobi: Kanezja Publishers
86
Ouma, M.A., Simwata, E.M.W. & Serem, T.D.K. (2013). Management of Pupil
Discipline in Kenya. A Case Study of Kisumu Municipality. Educational
Research (ISSN: 2141-5161). Vol. 4(5) 374-386.
Republic of Kenya. (2001a). Report of the Task Force on Students‟ Discipline and
Unrest in Secondary Schools. Nairobi: Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology.
Republic of Kenya. (2001b). The Children‟s Act 2001. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Republic of Kenya. (2013). Education Act. Chapter 212. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Ritchie, Jane, James (1981). Spare the Rod. Sydney: Allen & Unwin publishers.
Robinson, D.H., Funk, D.C., Beth, A., & Bush, A.M. (2005). Changing Beliefs about
Corporal Punishment: Increasing Knowledge about Ineffectiveness to build more
consistent Moral and Information Beliefs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 34
(3):123-134.
Sagara, R.K. (2012). Impact of Occupational Stress on Head Teachers‟ Tasks in
Secondary Schools of Kisumu County, Kenya. Nairobi: Unpublished Master‟s
Thesis. Kenyatta University, Kenya.
Simatwa, E.M.W. (2007). Management of Student Discipline in Secondary Schools in
Bungoma District Kenya. PhD Thesis. Maseno University.
Smith, K. (2008). Learning Styles and Students Perception of Teachers Attitudes Among
African American Students in Secondary Education. Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation. Louisiana State University, Louisiana.
Sonn, B. (1999). Discipline in Culture Human Rights. Cape Town: Via Africa Publishers.
Spatz, C. (2008). Basic Statistics: Tales of Distributions (9th
Edition) Thomson:
Wadsworth.
87
Straus, M.A. (2004). Beating the Devil Out of them: Corporal Punishment in American
Families. New York: Lexington Books.
Wachira, K. (2004 April Dunham, V (1984). Stress in Teaching. London, Croom Helm.
22). Teachers Training Colleges Continue to Produce Cane-obsessed Teachers.
The East African Standard (Pg 12).
Wango, G.M. & Mungai, E. (2007) Counseling in School. A Handbook for Teachers.
Nairobi: Phoenix Publishers.
88
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
DEPUTY HEAD TEACHERS QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is strictly for the purpose of my study at Maseno University in
assisting me to collect data on “influence of ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment and its influence on pupil discipline in public primary schools in Emuhaya
Sub-County Kenya” the data concerned will be treated with utmost confidentiality and
will be used for the purpose of this study. Kindly be as honest as possible and fill or tick
() in the spaces provided. The information will be treated with uttermost confidence.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
Fill in the blanks or tick as applicable.
1. Gender a) Male( ) b) Female( )
2. Age a) 24yrs and below ( ) b) 25-29 ( ) c) 30-34 ( )
d) 35-39 ( ) e) 40 yrs and above ( )
3. Teaching experience (number of years)
a) 0 – 4 yrs b) 5 – 9 yrs
c) 10 – 14 yrs d) 15 – 19 yrs e) 20 yrs and above.
4. For how long have you served in this school as a Deputy Head Teacher in this school?
a) 0 – 4 yrs b) 5 – 9 yrs
c) 10 – 14 yrs d) 15 – 19 yrs e) 20 yrs and above.
89
SECTION 2: SPECIFIC INFORMATION
1. Level of Pupil discipline in public primary schools
The following are indicators of levels of discipline in pupils, based on your knowledge
and experience indicate with ticks the level of discipline of the pupils in your school,
where VL= Very Low, L=Low, M= Moderate, H= High, VH= Very High
Indicators of discipline V L L M H VH
Theft
Truancy
Lateness
Sneaking
Fighting
Absenteeism
Noise making
Defiance of teachers and prefects
Use of abusive language
Bullying
Drug abuse
Failure to complete assignments
Sexual harassment
Cheating in examination
Drug trafficking
Any other(s) specify
Any other important information (specify)__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
90
2. Extent of implementation of ban of physical punishment
The following are methods used to maintain discipline in public primary schools. Please
indicate with ticks the frequency of their use in your school where 1 = once in a year,
2= once in four months, 3= once in a month, 4= once a week, 5= daily.
Method 1 2 3 4 5
Canning
Kicking
Slapping
Smacking
Spanking
Cuffing (a bow or slap with the open hand)
Manual labour
Kneeling
Blow
Pinching
Being forced to stand in the hot sun
Pulling ears
Any other (s) specify)
Any other information (specify) ___________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
91
3. Extent to which ban of mental harassment is being implemented
The following are methods used to maintain discipline in public primary schools. Please
indicate the frequency of their use in your school using ticks where 1 = once in a
year, 2= once in four months, 3= once in a month, 4= once a week, 5= daily.
Method 1 2 3 4 5
Intimidating
Ridiculing (giving negative comments about a pupils
behavior in the presence of classmates)
Scolding (To reprimand or criticize harshly and usually
angrily)
Being sent out of class
Shaming (making a pupil to feel ashamed of the bad
behavior)
Being isolated in a confined space (locking)
Name calling
Other(s) specify
Any other information (specify)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
92
APPENDIX II
CLASS TEACHERS QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is strictly for the purpose of my study at Maseno University in
assisting me to collect data on “influence of ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment and its influence on pupil discipline in public primary schools in Emuhaya
Sub- County Kenya”. The data concerned will be treated with utmost confidentiality and
will be used for the purpose of this study. Kindly be as honest as possible and fill or tick
() in the spaces provided. The information will be treated with uttermost confidence.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
Fill in the blanks or tick as applicable.
1. Gender: a) Male ( ) b) Female ( )
2. Age: a) 24yrs and below ( ) b) 25-29 ( ) c) 30-34 ( )
d) 35-39 ( ) e) 40 yrs and above ( )
3. Teaching experience (number of years)
a) 0 – 4 yrs b) 5 – 9 yrs c) 10 – 14 yrs
d) 15 – 19 yrs e) 20 yrs and above.
4. For how long have you served in this school as a teacher in this school?
a) 0 – 4 yrs b) 5 – 9 yrs
c) 10 – 14 yrs d) 15 – 19 yrs e) 20 yrs and above.
93
SECTION 2: SPECIFIC INFORMATION
4. Level of Pupil discipline in public primary schools.
The following are indicators of levels of discipline among pupils after the implementation
of the ban of physical punishment and mental harassment in primary schools, based on
your knowledge and experience indicate with ticks the level of discipline of the pupils
in your school on a five point rating scale where 1 = once in a year, 2= once in four
months, 3= once in a month, 4= once a week, 5= daily.
Indicators of Indiscipline 1 2 3 4 5
Theft
Truancy
Lateness
Sneaking
Fighting
Absenteeism
Noise making
Defiance of teachers and prefects
Use of abusive language
Bullying
Drug abuse
Failure to complete assignments
Sexual harassment
Cheating in examinations
Drug trafficking
Any other(s) specify
Any other information (specify) _____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
94
5. Extent to which ban of physical punishment is being implemented
The following are methods used to maintain discipline in public primary schools. Please
indicate with ticks the frequency of their use in your school where 1 = once in a year,
2= once in four months, 3= once in a month, 4= once a week, 5= daily.
Method 1 2 3 4 5
Canning
Kicking
Slapping
Smacking
Spanking
Cuffing (a bow or slap with the open hand)
Manual labour
Kneeling
Blow
Pinching
Being forced to stand in the hot sun
Pulling ears
Any other (s) specify)
Any other information (specify) _________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
95
6. Extent to which ban of Mental harassment is being implemented
The following are methods used to maintain discipline in public primary schools. Please
indicate the frequency of their use in your school using ticks where 1 = once in a
year, 2= once in four months, 3= once in a month, 4= once a week, 5= daily.
Method 1 2 3 4 5
Intimidating
Ridiculing (giving negative comments about a pupils
behavior in the presence of classmates)
Scolding (To reprimand or criticize harshly and usually
angrily)
Being sent out of class
Shaming (making a pupil to feel ashamed of the bad
behavior)
Being isolated in a confined space (locking)
Name calling
Other(s) specify
Any other information (specify) ______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
96
APPENDIX III
PUPIL LEADER QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is strictly for the purpose of my study at Maseno University in
assisting me to collect data on “influence of ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment and its influence on pupil discipline in public primary schools in Emuhaya
Sub- County Kenya”. The data concerned will be treated with utmost confidentiality and
will be used for the purpose of this study. Kindly be as honest as possible and fill or tick
() in the spaces provided. The information will be treated with uttermost confidence.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
Fill in the blanks or tick as applicable.
1. Gender a) Male ( ) b) Female ( )
2. Age a) 10 years and below ( ) b) 11 – 12 years ( ) c) 13 years and above ( )
3. For how long have you been in this school as a pupil?
a) 1 year and below ( ) b) 2 – 5 years ( ) c) 6 years and above ( )
97
SECTION 2: SPECIFIC INFORMATION
4. Extent to which ban of physical punishment is being implemented
The following are methods used to maintain discipline in public primary schools. Please
indicate with ticks the frequency of their use in your school where 1 = once in a year,
2= once in four months, 3= once in a month, 4= once a week, 5= daily.
Any other information (specify) ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Method 1 2 3 4 5
Caning
Kicking
Slapping
Smacking
Spanking
Cuffing (a blow or slap with the open hand)
Manual labour
Kneeling
Tapping (to strike gently with a light blow or blows)
Pinching
Being forced to stand in the hot sun
Pulling ears
Any other(s) specify
98
5. Extent to which ban of mental harassment is being implemented
The following are methods used to maintain discipline in public primary schools. Please
indicate the frequency of their use in your school using ticks where 1 = once in a
year, 2= once in four months, 3= once in a month, 4= once a week, 5= daily.
Method 1 2 3 4 5
Intimidating
Ridiculing( giving negative comments about a
pupils behavior in the presence of classmates)
Scolding (To reprimand or criticize harshly and
usually angrily)
Being sent out of class
Shaming (making a pupil to feel ashamed of the
bad behavior)
Being isolated in a confined space (locking)
Name calling
Other(s) specify
Any other information (specify)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Thank you.
99
APPENDIX IV
HEAD TEACHERS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
The purpose of this interview schedule is to gather information on the influence of ban of
physical punishment and mental harassment on pupil discipline in public primary schools
in Emuhaya Sub-County. The information collected will be treated with utmost
confidentiality and used only for the purpose of this study.
1. To what extent has ban of physical and mental harassment been implemented
in your school?
2. Is there any influence of the ban of physical punishment on pupil‟s discipline in
your school?
3. Is there any Influence of ban of mental harassment on pupil‟s discipline?
Thank you
100
APPENDIX V
SUB-COUNTY QASO INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
The purpose of this interview schedule is to gather information on the influence of ban of
physical punishment and mental harassment on pupil discipline in public primary schools
in Emuhaya Sub-County. The information collected will be treated with utmost
confidentiality and used only for the purpose of this study.
1. What is the extent to which ban of physical and mental harassment been
implemented in Emuhaya Sub-County?
2. What is the influence of the ban of physical punishment on pupil‟s discipline in
Emuhaya Sub-County?
3. Is there any Influence of ban of mental harassment on pupil‟s discipline in
Emuhaya Sub-County?
Thank you
101
APPENDIX VI
RATING OF THE LEVEL OF PUPIL DISCIPLE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
BAN OF PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT AND MENTAL HARASSMENT
School Level of discipline Physical punishment Mental harassment
1 4.20 3.00 3.93
2 4.33 3.13 4.00
3 4.20 3.15 4.00
4 4.20 2.96 3.82
5 4.07 3.06 4.04
6 4.20 3.06 3.89
7 4.13 3.02 4.00
8 4.13 3.10 4.07
9 4.13 2.88 3.89
10 4.37 2.85 3.93
11 4.17 2.79 3.71
12 4.20 2.90 3.79
13 4.33 3.06 4.25
14 3.90 2.69 3.68
15 3.97 2.94 3.96
16 4.10 2.85 3.68
17 4.20 3.08 3.79
18 4.27 2.98 3.79
19 4.20 3.31 3.96
20 4.27 3.19 4.14
21 4.20 3.21 4.04
22 4.20 3.13 4.11
23 4.20 3.23 4.25
24 4.43 3.35 4.18
25 4.20 2.90 3.43
26 4.57 3.23 4.14
27 4.13 2.94 3.93
28 3.73 2.67 3.89
102
29 3.67 2.77 4.18
30 3.40 2.60 3.71
31 3.67 2.71 4.14
32 3.70 2.73 3.89
33 3.97 2.65 3.68
34 4.20 2.79 3.64
35 4.20 2.79 3.43
36 4.20 2.75 3.75
37 3.80 2.67 3.57
38 3.80 2.65 3.54
39 3.80 2.52 3.39
40 4.40 2.94 3.82
41 4.40 2.69 3.43
42 4.17 2.98 3.79
43 4.30 2.90 3.75
44 4.20 3.00 3.86
45 4.23 2.83 4.00
46 4.13 2.88 3.71
47 4.23 2.79 3.64
48 4.17 2.88 4.00
49 4.17 2.79 3.82
50 4.17 2.88 3.61
51 4.07 2.73 4.00
52 4.07 2.83 3.68
53 4.00 3.17 3.57
54 3.90 2.85 4.07
55 3.90 2.92 4.04
56 4.30 2.81 3.50
57 4.23 3.10 3.86
58 4.30 2.85 3.54
59 4.30 3.10 4.11
60 4.37 2.94 3.93
103
61 4.50 3.08 3.46
62 4.50 3.27 3.43
63 4.37 3.02 3.57
64 4.20 2.85 4.00
65 4.20 2.71 3.71
66 4.40 2.98 3.57
67 4.40 3.08 3.50
68 4.40 3.06 3.75
69 4.43 3.00 4.04
70 4.43 3.08 3.71
71 4.43 3.06 3.68
Key1 (level of pupil discipline)
1.00 – 1.44 Very high discipline
1.45 – 2.44 High discipline
2.45 – 3.44 Moderate discipline
3.45 – 4.44 Low discipline
4.45 – 5.00 Very low discipline
Key 2 (Extent of implementation of the ban of physical punishment and mental
harassment)
1.00 – 1.44 Very high implementation
1.45 – 2.44 High implementation
2.45 – 3.44 Moderate implementation
3.45 – 4.44 Low implementation
4.45 – 5.00 Very low implementation
104
APPENDIX VII
RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION LETTER
105
RESEARCH PERMIT
106
APPENDIX VIII
MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF EMUHAYA SUB COUNTY
Location of Emuhaya
